Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870

WP:HOUNDING and disruptive tagging of Boko Haram

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Legacypac placed neutrality and factual accuracy tags on Boko Haram 8 January. His justification, at Talk:Boko_Haram#POV_Issues, was that 4 facts were supposedly missing from the article. If they were in fact missing, this would not justify the tags, since he could simply have added any sourced facts. In the same article talk page section he accuses me, with no explanation, of having an (unspecified) agenda; this edit he made to ANI (with edit summary "not going to allow any more unsubstantiated personal attacks"), where he angrily deletes a comment by another user about him having an agenda, shows that he is fully aware that making an unsubstantiated accusation of having an agenda is a personal attack.

His other reason, on the same talk page section, is "I noticed that what at first glance looks like a chronologically of events is actually a jumble. Agree with just year by year (or range of years if obvious breaks exist)." The chronology of events is, in fact, in chronological order, as made obvious by the year-be-year subheadings that have recently been added. Saying "or range of years if obvious breaks exist" indicates that he doesn't actually have any idea if what he is claiming is true, since he hasn't bothered to read the article to find out.

I have been unable to ascertain any valid reason for the "multiple issues" tag (eg. a fact that is inaccurate). On 10 January I removed the tags again ("redundant tags"). User:Legacypac restored the tags stating "restore tags to get additional editor attention here. User was blocked, partly for taking these tags off again", referring to this edit-warring report (the third he had filed against me in less than a week), where he refuses when asked to give any example of POV or factual inaccuracy, answering instead "I could ask questions or for diffs, but he would just blather on with more nonsense allegations and never answer the questions or justify them." The reason "to get additional editor attention here" still has nothing to do with POV or accuracy.

Also on 10 January, User:Legacypac added 2 more tags to the factual accuracy and neutrality "multiple issues" tag: "Added cleanup and copy edit tags (within multiple issues) to article". The new tags stated "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: reorganization underway-see talk." and "This article may require copy editing for grammar and capitalization especially".

In a section on the article talk page asking for reasons for the tags [1]. User:Lipsquid replied that the article has "an anti-Muslim and anti-Nigerian government bias". He backs this claim by complaining about a few sourced facts in the article that supposedly are biased, although they are exactly as they appear in the sources. So, I am now accused of having a POV "agenda" which is anti-everything. He also blames me for the existence of a "Name" section (which has nothing to do with me). User:Legacypac added an incoherent comment about the timeline, and states "These tags have brought in many new editors" - still not a reason for tags - he then makes a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the page to be protected. So, while his reason for tagging the article is purportedly to bring in new editors (a totally inadequate reason), he also feels the need to protect the article from new editors.

User:Lipsquid is a SPA who makes disruptive and disingenuous arguments when deleting sections, such as "The word "Boko Haram" is not in the reference you cited" when referring to a source that contains "Boko Haram" in the title and repeated throughout (Revolt in the North: Interpreting Boko Haram’s war on western education).

(A) Since I disagreed with him about unsourced material on another article, User:Legacypac has had an obsession with filing reports against me to the edit-warring noticeboard, generally when no 3RR violation has occurred (about half a dozen in the last few weeks). He has recently stepped up his campaign with an AN/I thread, as well as with the unexplained "multiple issues" article tag. With this edit in an unrelated thread on the ANI noticeboard, he announced his intention to get rid of me as an editor on Wikipedia, (or, to "deal with" me, whatever that means).

Since adding the tags, User:Legacypac has added a new completely unsourced section, Boko_Haram#Symbols, near the top of the page. His other smaller additions, mainly to the infobox, have similarly introduced factual inaccuracies, which I have now corrected, and explained in Talk:Boko_Haram#Factual_inaccuracies_added_to_infobox. As yet, no factual inaccuracies have been pointed out that existed before the "factual inaccuracy" and other tags were added.

This article, which had been relatively stable since I completed the history section several weeks ago, is very high-traffic and should not be subject to User:Legacypac's childish whims. The multiple issues tags are pointlessly disruptive solely in order to advance a personal vendetta. They have now been there for over a week, with absolutely no valid justification. zzz (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea what this is even about and, honestly, didn't read the whole thing, but it seems there should be a separate noticeboard just for complaints about Legacypac by this point. It's always the same thing, too - someone is alleging he's threatened to get rid of them, or report them to death, or whatever. I withhold any further comment, though. Maybe there's a multi-tentacled conspiracy out to make him look bad. (Stranger things have happened.) BlueSalix (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I must be part of the conspiracy. Legacypac and I both are on the Trilateral Commission and go to Bilderburger meetings in Area 51 to plan out the demise of other Wikipedia users. Please leave me out of any nonsense that involves crazy people. ZZZ asked what was wrong with the article on the talk page, so I told him on the talk page. I didn't edit anything, I didn't make any personal comments about him. I discussed inconsistencies and bias in the article. [redacted] Lipsquid (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If terms like "crazy people" are being thrown around then obviously there is a problem of some type. I strike, and apologize for, my previous flippant comments. On further reading of Signedzzz's report this does seem to be a highly questionable sequence of edits delivered in a very charged fashion that is not WP:AGF and not WP:CIVIL. Further, the addition of the unsourced section "Symbols" is not consistent with WP:CS. These are not obvious facts, but expert assertions being made with no references, like "Two crossed Kalashnikov automatic rifles, model AK47. This is a common symbol with terrorist organizations and symbolizes armed struggle and the willingness to use violence." BlueSalix (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply I'm glad Signedzzz filed this report for context is everything. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

The following report (linked above by Signedzzz) was archived automatically without action or comment while Signedzzz was on a 4 day block. He did not accept the proposed topic ban, so it goes to the community or an Admin to decide. I will not waste everyone's time responding to the unsubstantiated allegations above except to say that:

1. Pending Changes Review was added by an Admin a few hours ago. That allows everyone to edit, but changes by editors who are brand new require review before going live. Reason was persistent vandalism by non-autoconfirmed editors.
2. At (A) is he getting close to breaching his ISIL topic ban?
3. A review of Boko Haram talk and changes log will show the rest of his complaints are nonsense and just part of his pattern of behavior that lead to User:EdJohnston proposing the topic ban.
4. At BlueSalix - it is because I edit some contentious areas and am willing to report the problematic editors that these topics attract.

(Revived from Archives) Boko Haram Proposed Topic Ban

Related 3RR reports: [7], [8] and others.

A single editor is guarding the Boko Haram article like a junkyard dog, making it impossible for any other editor to make meaningful contributions. Since all efforts to reason are met with insults, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and more edit warring, the only solution I can see it a community imposed topic ban for Boko Haram and all related topics.

Examples:

1. [9] wholesale revert of changes by User:Koyos
2. [10] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Lipsquid and adjusted by User:Charles Essie
3. [11] remove POV and Factual tags added by User:Legacypac
4. [12] wholesale revert on changes to Names section by User:Legacypac
5. [13] makes large edit with summary "(many unexplained changes to text)"
6. [14] editwarring over Background section with same revert about 9 times. Results in 4 trips to 3RR board and a comment by User:EdJohnston that he believes Signedzzz will never stop.
7. [15] removed word "men" from types of people (men, women and children) kidnapped in the lead and good source added by User:105.184.160.62
8. [16] [17] [[18]]] reverted additions of ISIL under allies by User:Jurryaany, an IP, and User:Jackninja5. first time it is ref'd, second time he says it needs a ref, third time in breach of his ISIL topic ban, .
9. [19] even undoes minor spelling variation by User:LightandDark2000
10. [20] good addition by User:MelvinToast
11. [21] took out timeline section, left article with only a link under see also
12. [22] reverted the addition of "nearly" by User:Shii in front of an approximation of refugees.

And if you go back further there are more examples.

User contribution tool found an astonishing 2443 edits by User:Signedzzz on Boko Haram (54.75% of the total edits made to the page).

Just as I am finishing this report I see the post below on 3RR, which may solve the problem. However, since I did all the work to put the report together I'm putting this up anyway to call editors attention to the problem with the Boko Haram article and as a back-up of information to support a topic ban imposed by the community or an Admin.Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(Quoted here) Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (end Quote) (end of repost of ANi report of 10 January 2015 Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Discussion

That's fine, but I'm not sure how it excuses some of the language that was being thrown around or the insertion of a large quantity of uncited material. Also, having now read the diffs you've posted above, I - in some cases - question the accuracy of the summaries you've offered of these interactions, while - in others - fail to see the problem of the edits. This diff [23] for instance you've characterized as a "wholesale revert" of your edits, but it appears the only substantive edits were to remove those of your insertions that were sourced to non-RS sources like something called "gotdns.com" and a primary source reference to wikileaks. BlueSalix (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A (very) cursory can of Signedzzz's 54.75% total edits appears that a large percentage of them are minor copyediting that predate the emergence of Boko Haram as a topic of heavy media coverage. So, in my opinion, it doesn't seem that astonishing and, in fact, rather commendable. BlueSalix (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thank you for your action and comments. I would, however, like to place one note in the margin of the general discussion: OWNership is baaaad, of course, but that doesn't make zzz's work automatically invalid. Of course edit warring and removing valid tags and all that jazz are disruptive, but let's think about the baby before we throw it out with the bathwater: let's make sure that such an abortive move will not detract from article quality. (If it sounds like I'm breaking a lance for zzz, maybe--but I don't know them from Adam and have no involvement with the article.) I see that 1R was tried unsuccessfully at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but perhaps it's worth having another go at 1R, or even 0R, before we throw another topic ban at zzz. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• With respect of zzz's edits, having only glanced at this page, it appears he's been on it for a long time. And it appears his concerns are justifiably centered on the insertion of large amounts of uncited material, or material cited to non-RS. I don't know if he's a SME or not, but banning him from this subject in favor of this other editor doesn't seem like it will result in the best possible article WP can produce on this subject. I'm not very close to this question so there may be some nuances on which I'm not picking up, but this is my bird's eye view. BlueSalix (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: The OWNership continues as he just made several unconstructive edits that removed good additions made by a variety of editors while he was on the block, which appears to restores the lead and infobox to exactly how he had it before the block. [24] and [25]. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see now that I misunderstood--I thought Ed's commentary was on a current block. Here's the thing, though: I cannot immediately see from your diff that zzz is reverting (ie, edit warring), and I cannot right now look into it, since I gotta run. I urge another admin to look into the matter (Bbb23 are you up yet?). If it had been a clear revert or something like that I would have blocked for a week or more. Thanks for the note, Legacypac. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Your first diff shows he edited the contributions of an IP editor. Nothing against IP editors, but reverting or modifying edits contributed by an IP editor is usually not a smoking gun of ownership or disruptiveness, particularly on controversial topics as this one appears to be. A more careful look at this specific edit, as far as I'm concerned, also doesn't find any fault. Your second diff is to him editing his own edit. BlueSalix (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen any other article get tagged for factual inaccuracy when every fact is cited, and no fact is claimed to be inaccurate at all. And the POV tag has not been explained either (what is my POV?) And I don't know how it fails Wikipedia's quality standards (the chronology is in chronological order, so it can't be that). Legacypac's original explanation was "to alert other editors and readers that there are [unspecified] problems here." But WP:TC says "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article". Yesterday, 75,000 readers saw the tags, but only 165 looked at the talk page to see if there was a reason. If there is a reason, I'd just like to know what it is, so I can discuss it and help fix it. I can see how some of my actions might look a bit OWNery, so I'll be more careful. For a very long time, hardly any other editors contributed, and now, suddenly, after these tags which I don't understand, there's subheadings (some possibly non-neutral) over every paragraph or 2, and many photos of questionable value. And unsourced material, no discussion. zzz (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in owning this article (or any other). I got involved when I saw a content dispute and gave a 3rd opinion. This issue is less about any specific edit but that over many months Signedzzz has reverted every substantive edit by every other editor that comes along. This while excluding substantive info (like Boko Haram was designated a terrorist group by the UN Security Council under the AQ sanctions). The latest two deletions after the block reset multiple editors all at once. Finally I did not add the symbols section,, I presume Signedzzz added it but have not looked through his several thousand edits to confirm. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How does complaining about the factual accuracy and POV Tags in the article while also complaining about the factual accuracy and POV issues in the article work? And most of the stuff Signedzzz is complaining about is stuff he put there originally.

EdJohnston's Quoted post above was in a 3RR report that he closed as the previous ANi was being posted by me (as noted). It has now been detached from the quoted ANi by Blue's insertions. (fixed now) That ANi went stale as Incapped it off with Ed's quote and Signedzzz could not respond while blocked and choose not to accept the topic ban proposed by EdJohnston for his edit warring. So now we are back to the edit warring issue and the OWN issue that lead to the 4 day block and proposed topic ban by EdJohnston. Hope this is clear and I hope User:EdJohnston will weigh in. He was aware of my 4 day back ANi and thanked me for posting it. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologise, you merely [moved the unsourced "symbols" section up to the top of the article; I can't find where it was first added 3 hours before.

I can't think of any substantive edit, for months, reverted or otherwise. There was an edit that added a couple of subheadings to the end section, which I was grateful for, about a month ago. And a more recent edit at the end of the chronology, when I had n't edited for a while.

I certainly haven't "excluded" substantive info, or any other sort of info. I never got round to mentioning the UN, since there is nothing much substantive to say about them, apart from the mere fact of the terrorist designation. I did revert an edit in the lead about New Zealand designating them as terrorist, because I couldn't see how it was important enough, which I did explain to the editor.

"How does complaining about the factual accuracy and POV Tags in the article while also complaining about the factual accuracy and POV issues in the article work?" I've no idea what this means. My only complaint with the tags is that I haven't heard yet a justification. No inaccurate fact, for example. "And most of the stuff Signedzzz is complaining about is stuff he put there originally." What stuff that I put there are you saying I am complaining about? (Is that what you're saying?) zzz (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am commenting principally because Drmies asked me to. I'm not quite sure what the scope of the proposed topic ban is. Perhaps that should be clarified. However, most of zzz's latest comments above seem eerily similar to comments they've made before. I'm not going to dig up diffs for more recent problems because, athough I'm technically "up", my energy level is not. I do think that changing from 1RR to 0RR on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant would create more problems than it solves and would be time-consuming to enforce. I also think it would require a separate discussion as it's part of a broader set of community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:ORR, 0RR is intended to be imposed on editors only, not articles. NE Ent 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I always forget that sentence. Maybe it's because I'm not crazy about 0RR generally. Personally, I've seen it used most often as a restriction agreed to by a user in exchange for avoiding more serious sanctions. Then, of course, there is the recurring problem - but heightened - as to what constitutes a "revert".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Brief History

1. In response to the two most recent 3RR reports [26] [27], EdJohnston offered Signedzzz a 1 month self imposed break from Boko Haram on his talk page instead of sanctions.
2. This offer was rejected by Signedzzz when he went back to edit warring.
3. So I drafted up the January 10 ANi (reposted above) where I proposed a "community imposed topic ban for Boko Haram and all related topics," but as I was about to post it
4. I found that EdJohnston had just issued a 4 day block and an offer "This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)"
5. Signedzzz did not agree to the topic ban, lived out the 4 day block, and went straight back to reverting other editors [28] [29], by restoring the infobox and lead basically to how he had them on January 6 before he was blocked and a bunch of other editors worked on the article without his OWNership getting in the way,
6. filing this ANi against me and when challenged in this ANi,
7. he posted combative stuff on the talk page [30] [31] and, after answers are provided there, comes back here and claims to one will explain the issues to him WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

So I leave this in the capable hands of an Admin to deal with or we can vote on the topic ban as defined by EdJohnston. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Everyone apparently seems to agree that the article has multiple issues. I still don't understand what they are. The talk page just has user lipsquid complaining that I repeated what sources say, and complaining there shouldn't be a "name" section (which I might agree with, but it doesn't explain why the article's so terrible), Talk:Boko_Haram#Article_tags, so that doesn't help. That's when I decided to come here in hopes of an explanation. I still haven't had one. But at least I know everyone agrees now. zzz (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Never ending WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I doubt he will ever stop. Lipsquid (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Ive stopped editing, dont worry. Like I said, I can see that everyone agrees the stuff i do has multiple issues which im not aware of. I just would have liked an explanation either on the talk page or the admins noticeboards where Ive asked for one, since the tags were added by someone who has made no secret of making it his mission to get rid of me. And someone else who calls me a "crazy person" and a "loon who thinks he owns the article" in his first reply here. Insults and catchphrases like IDONTHEARTHAT obviously trumps anything else, and I was idiotic to think I'd ever get an explanation. Which doesnt matter anyway since everyone else agrees. The stuff ive done just creates problems for other editors to sort out, so theres no point in me hanging around to get insulted any more. zzz (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just by the way, the journalist who links to my DYK article in this article doesnt seem to share the opinion of these editors about my mental faculties. There appears to be something else going on here, which i want no further part of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And, thanks so much for your "support", User:Drmies, in summoning BBB, who was of course the admin who gave me my first 48 hours block with talk page access removed, for "violating 1RR" after 1 revert (ie, not violating 1RR), at Legacypac's behest, where I was not even allowed to respond to the report. (And I had not been given the General Sanctions notification, since it was my first edit to the article). zzz (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't call on Bbb to support you or attack you. I called on him because he's a good reader of edit warring diffs, and because he has looked at your file before--there was a distinct possibility that Bbb could look at those edits that were signaled here and determine if this was continuing the edit war or not. Now, if you wish to rehash a block from two months ago, do it somewhere else please. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, except that (like my first block mentioned above) the edits signaled here just concern me disagreeing with Legacypac, which is plainly breaking a strictly enforced unwritten rule of Wikipedia. zzz (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The last post looks like a violation of his SCW/ISIL topic ban, and the behavior highlighted there is much like the behavior highlighted here.

Editing wikipedia requires some WP:COMPETENCE in understanding sources and correctly reflecting them in the article. It requires not dismissing a link [32] between two terrorist organizations because the last source he found (and misrepresnted) was June 2014 [33]. or because in another source he can't see any mention of al-Qaeda even though pages 23-25 are headed External Links and Networks where we can read all about the links to AQ. In my estimation WP:COMPETENCE is lacking here, with this thread being the latest example.

ALthough he posts here sarcastically he is not editing at Boko Haram, he is at the same time posting stuff on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to reply to you, so I replied. No surprise really at this point that you find this worth complaining about. zzz (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of competence, the Congressional report of June 2014 summarises its own position regarding Boko Haram's affiliation with Al Qaida, and that of the US govt, at the end of the first paragraph of the report thus: "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda." Legacypac repies "Quoting the first summary page is fine, as long as you don't cherry pick one sentence to get to a novel conclusion." He is quite literally stating that the report's own summary of its own conclusions is "cherry picking to get to a novel conclusion," and he instead reaches a different conclusion. And he describes this as a matter of "competence". Since Legacypac reverted my edit which he complains about above, the Boko Haram infobox again states that al Qaeda are "allies" - because on Wikipedia, User:Legacypac's opinion trumps the US government's. zzz (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome any Admin or Editor to review the debate and make a ruling. The quote from the summary refers to AQ Core, but the report clearly suggests current links to AQIM and suggests other links. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that you know you're right already, though, since you edit-warred to include your opinion in the infobox, although "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda" (since June 2014). Note that User:Legacypac edit-warred for the infobox to state that "Al Qaeda" are allies, not "AQIM", although, given the present scrutiny, he has now decided unilaterally to change it to "Al Qaeda via AQIM", a novel formulation of his own invention, still clearly in disagreement with the very clear position of the US govt (as of June 2014), but presumably a tacit acceptance that his edit-warring been wrong all along. The link with AQIM is possible to draw from the report of a US officer in February 2014. However, the Congressional report was from June 2014 - and you editwarred to include "Al Qaeda", not "AQIM", because you think you can ignore Reliable Sources. Which is strange, since you also edit warred to include a "factual inaccuracy" tag among the "multiple issues", and have still not indicated a single factual inaccuracy - in the entire (long) article, whereas out of your few additions, you are already editwarring to introduce blatant, obvious factual inaccuracies. zzz (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Another obvious blatant example from the infobox: "Strength estimated at over 9000". The US govt Congressional report above gives the strength as "100s to 1000s", as stated and cited in the lead section. The Telegraph, which is cited in the infobox, says "up to 9000+"I read this source months ago and forgot the exact wording (for the record) "largest force 9000+". Which means "up to 9000, or perhaps more". Yet you edit warred for it to say "over 9000". Is this another factual inaccuracy, as I explained in the talk page, or am I WP:NOTHEARINGSOMETHING, again? It is another crystal clear example of User:Legacypac deliberately disregarding WP:RS and edit-warring to include his blatantly wrong opinions ("factual inaccuracies", as per the tag he added). And please note that he has only been WP:OWNing this article for a few days so far, and has hardly even got started yet. zzz (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example: see end of this report. After the clear explanation there (and in my edit summary) of why I removed his addition, he just simply added it back, claiming "restore unexplained mass revert of changes to Names section" (emphasis added). zzz (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This sort of behaviour by LP was ongoing on the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa article and on its talkpage. "Curiously" even though that talkpage was started on Oct 23, 2014 but the oldest archive of that page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa/Archive_4begins at November 14....some discussions on the missing-from-the-archive talkpage were directly chronicling/document false/misleading edit comments and POVism by him on that article; some of my points about his behaviour are present in Archive 4, however. Post-striking out that previous bit, I had the numerical order of the archives wrong; I'll maybe come back with specific sections from Article 1, I've spent more time than I meant to today on this distasteful board; and I note he's trying to get a vote-call to block someone else who's pointing at his behaviour as a problem. Pot kettle black big-time.Skookum1 (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note also his ongoing archiving of this page - very curious for someone who is the subject of an open ANI here - and also his AGF and NPA in his redactions and removal of my vote from the voting section he started to seek having me blocked, not for any reason to do with the articles and discussions that that ANI, the purpose of which was actually mediation not punishment. He accuses me of "harassment" but that's exactly what he's doing towards me; I'm staying away from this page mostly, but upon seeing this ANI and what you're talking about re him his past behaviour on other "terror theme" articles is more than relevant; also re Talk:2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack though to a lesser degree, but cheerleading there for another highly POV editor who fabricated what's not in sources and who, similarly, seems to be entirely agenda-driven on MidEast/terror articles. Look in his usercontributinos for yet more edit-warring and POV activity/ANIs about him in the past.Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All hogwash, but bonus points for coming up with an accusation as unique as blaming me for the work of lower case sigma bot III. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did strike that out once my error was pointed out to me by a more friendly editor than you have any intentions of ever being. Bonus points for your supposed business in BC...you must make a lot of money at it to spend all day, for weeks and weeks and months, wiki-warring here in Wikipedia about "terror" and pushing a certain POV about same. Other than re-heeding Viriditas' advice to me about ignoring this pile of "hogwash" that goes on here (otherwise known as "horseshit") and just keep working on articles; you do not have consensus to block me, trying so hard as you are; I'll be back with specific items on those archives for the benefit of those here who are observing much the same about you as myself and others have noted about you re Ottawa.Skookum1 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTHERE issues continue

I just don't believe this. User:Legacypac has now deleted "membership estimated at 100s to 1000s", as per Congressional Research Service, saying "replace inaccurate and unsourced "few hundred to few thousand" members line with sourced statement for # of fighters", replacing it with "9000", cited to a source that says "unknown" and "lower estimate 500, higher estimate 9000". So he's replaced a correctly cited estimate with an incorrectly cited one. I don't understand why. And he's done the same in the infobox. He just has no idea about factual accuracy whatsoever. It's hopeless. It's surreal, he editwars to keep the factual inaccuracy warning, then insists on adding factual inaccuracies. I tried reasoning with him on article talk, Talk:Boko_Haram#Membership_number.2Ffighter_count, and he just told me to get stuffed. I don't know what else to do, except leave the article to collect enough factual inaccuracies to justify the warning tag. zzz (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Total hogwash. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Unknown, lower estimate 500, higher estimate 9000" = "9000", according to Legacypac. Either he actually believes this (WP:COMPETENCE), or he thinks it's close enough for Wikipedia purposes (WP:NOTHERE). His protracted WP:HOUNDING, and deliberate disruption of this article, adding his POV factual inaccuracies, presumably in a bizarre attempt to justify the multiple issues warning tags he added, needs to be stopped. zzz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Short Summary

There were no factual inaccuracies before he started editing, and no misrepresentations of sources - not a single one has been pointed out by anyone. But Legacypac wants to get rid of the editor, and finds the article doesn't do a good enough job of promoting his POV, so he sticks multiple issues warning tags on it, with a completely ridiculous and false explanation (4 missing facts, "These tags have brought in many new editors"), then gets stuck in making any POV inaccurate edits he likes, sticking sources next to "facts" that misrepresent the sources (diffs above), ignoring inconvenient sources that state the opposite of other "facts" (diffs above), adding massive POV sections, and edit warring whenever necessary. Reverting his edits is not allowed (no consensus). So at this point, as is now a fairly well-accepted fact, all of Wikipedia's terrorism-related articles are User:Legacypac's personal blog, bearing little resemblance to any reliable sources. zzz (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - because of connectivity problems I haven't been able to explore the archives/history of the talkpage for the Ottawa shootings article where LP's conduct was very similar; he had in fact deleted and re-deleted a section on that talkpage about his false edit comments and POV edits and SYNTH assertions; it appears to have been deleted again before that page was archived. I have other things to do today, but I'm pointing out that his editing of others posts in talkpage discussions is against guidelines; and similarly he's doing that here on the vote-call he launched against me on this ANI. And who is he again? And why is he allowed to redact and remove others' posts, incite hostility towards them, invoke vote-calls and then editorialize on them? Finger-pointing away from himself is his tactic, very notable on the Ottawa page, per that repeatedly deleted listing of his miscreant edits/synth/pov work there. Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:173.50.161.119 disruptive edits

173.50.161.119 did a little bit of disruptive edits in 2010 and has now returned and done a bit more disruptive edits. Recent vandalism is shown here, here, and here. Perhaps a block is needed to stop this IP from further vandalizing articles. Andise1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, but this is not place to report any vandal, you should report it at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Please read instructions when you start discussion. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardo

• Xuxo (talk · contribs)
• BEARtruth89 (talk · contribs)
• NBAkid (talk · contribs)

Please verify what is happening to the article Pardo and take the proper measures. I prefer to abstain from meta discussions and reporting users, but I'm tired of seeing their row on my Watchlist. -- Marawe (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for ten days to give these truthseekers (I templated them for edit warring) time to work it out on the talk page. The version I locked is without the cute pictures. I imagine a population group of 82 million deserves a couple of pictures, but there are WP:BLP issues here, and only one of the warriors has sought the talk page. Good luck to them. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• The history tells me this is actually older, and also involved are Khalel122 and Coltsfan. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page, with consensus to include for each and every individual picture based on ironclad references in the articles of those individuals. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• I used the talk page to discuss the issue and I was ignored by the other part, who insists on posting picture of people claiming their race as "pardo" without any source! The other should be blocked for vandalism. Xuxo (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Professional advice given at FXCM

FXCM is a retail currency broker which recently went all-but-bankrupt likely leaving many punters in the lurch. User:Fxcmfraudbuster is a new editor who has only edited this article (a special purpose account) with the advice in the article to get your money out asap, etc.

I greatly sympathize - but fear it is too late. In any case his edit constitutes professional advice, and I have reverted it 2X (going on 3!). Please have an admin revert me if I'm wrong, temporarily lock the article, or whatever.

At User talk:Fxcmfraudbuster, I've informed him of all of this, referred to the ToU, and done all I think I can do.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they have stopped for now; let me know if the resume and I will block the editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on today's news, i updated the article again. It might be more to User:Fxcmfraudbuster's liking, but I doubt that there's anything that will help him much. It's difficult to say anything about these "all-but-bankrupt" cases, but the Citigroup analysts now quoted by Bloomberg have essentially said it all for us. Surprisingly, FXCM's website is still open and they seem to still be accepting new customers. So the firm is not officially bankrupt - the term of art is that it is "an informal bankruptcy." Feel free to revert me, but I'm guessing I know the subtleties here pretty well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GLPeterson still disruptively pushing his own original research

GLPeterson (talk · contribs) ANI here ANI/3RRArchive with block here is still following the same behavior noted in those reports of pushing his own original research (consisting of reworked material from two websites he owns) at Wireless power without any edit summary explaining his edits and zero participation on the article talk page, despite numerous requests that he explain his edits and stop replacing sourced material with what seems to be his own opinion diff.

Diffs of GLPeterson's disruptive editing on Wireless power since getting blocked on December 14, 2014. Not all of these are reverts, some are unsourced additions

• 16:55, January 18, 2015 Another complete rewrite adding new section "Terrestrial transmission line" for his unsourced surface wave material and reinserting disturbed ground and air method into Tesla section, Hertz transmitting wireless power, many other errors
• 20:07, January 15, 2015 Reinsertion of unsourced claim that Hertz's 1888 transmission of radio waves "experimentally confirmed Maxwell's prediction of wireless energy transfer".
• 05:42, January 15, 2015 Revert or rewrite of Gil Dawsons correction of his errors in "Capacitive coupling" section.
• 18:15, January 8, 2015 Reinserted same old Tesla stuff, only non-Tesla source is Corum.
• 21:59, January 7, 2015 Restored unsourced rewrite after revert by Fountains
• 09:56, January 7, 2015 Complete rewrite of article, adding new "Bound-mode EM surface wave" section for the unsourced surface wave material from his old "Electrical conduction" section, and inserting same old "Disturbed charge of ground and air" material into Tesla section, unsourced dB figures in table, many other bad edits.
• 10:50, January 6, 2015‎ Reinserted unsourced dB figures after revert
• 09:25, January 6, 2015‎ Replaced sourced material in table with cryptic unsourced dB figures
• 07:31, January 6, 2015 Unsourced WP:SYNTH addition that Hertz's 1888 transmission of radio waves "experimentally confirmed Maxwell's prediction of wireless energy transfer". No one calls Hertz's reception of microwatt signals "wireless energy transfer"

We are near the bottom of the WP:DDE flow chart with this editor. What was true at this ANI is still true, this editor does not communicate. The tactic he has been following for the last 8 years of adding material he seems to think has to be added to Wikipedia, via rewriting the articles Wireless energy transfer, Wireless energy transmission, Wireless power, and creating the article World Wireless System now includes inventing subsection topic names for it re: "Bound-mode electromagnetic surface wave", "Terrestrial transmission line technique". GLPeterson's has added a new tactic of maintaining his own copy of the article Wireless power at User:GLPeterson/Revised Draft which he keeps copying/pasting wholesale into Wireless power. This all seems to show a desire to PUSH his own WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and non-standard terminology instead of showing a good-faith desire to improve content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear from GLPeterson, but having worked some on the World Wireless System article and having just read this talk page thread, I'm convinced that it's time to consider a topic ban. His obtuse communication style and repeated insertion of original research into various articles is indeed disruptive. - MrX 03:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree with both the above editors. For years ([34], [35], [36]) GLPeterson has WP:OWNed the Wireless power article, tenaciously WP:PUSHing his unsourced WP:OR, WP:FRINGE theories about wireless power transmission based on 110 year old ideas from Nikola Tesla, and reverting efforts to correct it. Although he does cite sources, the sources are not reliable; mainly primary sources consisting of Tesla's erroneous 19th century writings or modern pseudoscientific authors. He is the only editor supporting this material, against the consensus of at least 5 editors: Chetvorno, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Wtshymanski, Roches, MrX and occasionally GliderMaven ([37]). He pushes the same material on World Wireless System (which he created as a WP:POVFORK for his material), Wardenclyffe tower, and several other articles, as detailed in an earlier ANI. There is also a Fringe Theories Noticeboard complaint about his material. In general he seldom gives edit comments or discusses his edits on the Talk page unless he is facing administrative sanctions. Gary Peterson (GLPeterson) appears to own several websites [38], [39] and a bookstore [40] specializing in Tesla information which he uses as sources in articles, and seems to fit the profile of a WP:SPA, virtually his only activity is inserting his dubious WP:OR Tesla theories into a variety of articles. Although I would like to hear his side, I think eventually a topic ban may be needed, as in his long term behavior this editor has shown little respect or even understanding [41], [42] of Wikipedia collaboration, consensus, or verifiability policies.--Chetvorno^TALK 12:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

History of edit-warring on Wireless power Here is a list of GLPeterson's reverts prior to being blocked 13 December 2014 (his reverts after the block are given in User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr's list above):

• 19:49, January 16, 2011
• 09:38, January 17, 2011
• 05:06, July 29, 2012
• 08:45, January 15, 2013
• 11:21, January 15, 2013
• 15:02, September 8, 2014
• 08:23, September 20, 2014
• 09:46, September 22, 2014
• 14:35, September 22, 2014
• 06:58, September 23, 2014
• 13:31, October 9, 2014
• 20:13, October 9, 2014
• 06:41, October 11, 2014
• 06:15, October 20, 2014
• 07:49, October 20, 2014
• 16:27, October 30, 2014
• 20:21, October 30, 2014
• 20:21, October 30, 2014
• 20:09, November 17, 2014
• 22:52, December 9, 2014
• 06:12, December 11, 2014
• 15:59, December 11, 2014
• 06:19, December 12, 2014

The disputed material was originally a section called "Electrical conduction", and some material in "Timeline of wireless power". Beginning September 2014, Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I with help from Wtshymanski rewrote this into a properly sourced "History" section. GLPeterson continually reverted our edits, either with no edit comment or calling them "damage". He is shrewd enough not to technically violate the 3RR, but has twice "run the clock out" by performing his 3rd revert just after 24 hrs has elapsed (diffdiffdiffdiff) and (diff, 18:59 Dec 11 is followed by four reverts, the last at diff, 19:05 Dec 12).

These problems were thoroughly discussed on the Talk page (Talk:Wireless power#Way too much Tesla, Talk:Wireless power#Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3, Talk:Wireless power#Electrical Conduction) and GLPeterson was invited to participate [43], [44] He did, but he only repeated quotes from his own material [45] and declined to provide reliable sources [46]. Three editors reached out to him on his personal Talk page to try to discuss his edits [47], [48], [49], but he either did not respond or answered with a cryptic quote from Neil Armstrong. I brought a ANI/3RR complaint against him 13 December 2014 and he received a 48hr block. Although his discussions with the administrator on his Talk page were polite (User_talk:GLPeterson#Request_for_assistance), he mentioned legal action [50] and did not indicate any understanding of WP consensus or an intention to drop the issue [51].

Since the block he has resumed the same disruptive editing. He vandalized the article Talk page [52], [53] inserting his comments and unsourced material in boldface between other editors comments. He then resumed reinserting his same unsourced material in the article, along with new dubious material as detailed by the diff list in Fountains of Bryn Mawr's complaint at top. In two wholesale rewrites he has added sections called "Terrestrial transmission line" 16:55, January 18, 2015 and "Bound-mode EM surface wave" 09:56, January 7, 2015 containing expanded versions of his unsourced "surface wave" content from his old section, in both edits also reinserting his old unsourced Tesla material into "Tesla's experiments" section along with much other unsourced material. Again these concerns were discussed on the Talk page (Talk:Wireless power#Recent changes to summary table and Talk:Wireless power#Reintroduction of unsourced pseudoscientific content), [54], [55], and GLPeterson was personally invited to respond [56]. I asked him again 7 January 2015 on his personal Talk page to discuss his changes at the article Talk page, with no response [57].

As mentioned by Fountains of Bryn Mawr above, he maintains a complete alternate Wireless power article User:GLPeterson/Revised Draft diff in his personal pages, containing his unsourced WP:FRINGE material, indicating an intention to continue his edit-warring (having seen this ANI, he is apparently trying to hide his page [[58]] by erasing it and leaving a link to a previous version). Over the years this single editor's obstructive actions have wasted, and continue to waste, huge amounts of other editor's time and effort.--Chetvorno^TALK 12:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The editor in question is polite, when he does comment on talk pages, but persists in re-adding the Tesla material. The Wireless power article has been improved by Chetvorno and others recently. It does not fail to mention Tesla; it just mentions his work in the correct perspective and in appropriate historical context. The addition of more Tesla material would be superfluous, and would unbalance the article, even if it were clearly written. The problem with the edit-warring is that the content uses non-standard and often obsolete scientific jargon. Initially, I thought that, if the editor was willing to update the terminology and explain things from a clear and modern perspective, the content might have a place on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that will be possible. Roches (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor deliberately adding BLP violation (and unsourced claims) back to article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Scalhotrod, with whom I am often in conflict, has repeatedly added an obvious BLP violation back to the Juelz Ventura article after I removed it. The content in question identifies a notable professional basketball player as a porn actor who has "performed" with Ventura. The claim is all but certainly false, and the cited reference provides absolutely no support for the claim. I initially removed the violation here [59]; Scalhotrod restored it (and other claims without any RS) here [60] and here [61] and here [62], with inappropriate, bordering on insulting, edit summaries. (The supposed supporting reference is a promotional page for Penthouse, and is, at best, a primary source that does not reliably identify any individual beyond Ventura, and really is just advertising for a paid-membership website.) The disputed content, rather promotional, is so slipshod that it identifies a male performer as an "actress", and was initially added by . . . Scalhotrod. Scalhotrod refuses to engage in reasonable discussion on porn-related issues -- note, for example, this personal attack in an edit summary [63] restoring demonstrably false claims to another porn bio -- and has just come off a lengthy topic ban for for similarly inappropriate behavior in another area. Some sanction regarding BLP editing is in order. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that "TJ Cummings" is indeed a pornographic actor, however, is not the same TJ Cummings in our article of the same. In other words, there are two different people named TJ Cummings, one who is a pornographic actor and appears to be white, and the other who is a basketball player and appears to be black. I assume, in the case of the former, the surname "Cummings" is a novelty stage name. While giving Scalhotrod the benefit of the doubt that he was confused by the identical names, I agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz that the wikilink should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem appears to have rectified itself. I removed the wikilinks to TJ Cummings, after which Scalhotrod deleted the name altogether and replaced it with some other porn actor. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Talk page for Talk:Juelz Ventura is surprisingly absent of HW's efforts to communicate[64]. But if this is just about a Wikilink that's pointed at the wrong place, holy crap HW, why couldn't you just say that and leave out all the puffery and hyperbole? I've gone ahead and removed the link and added 2 other working links that point to the correct actors[65]. I have also started a discussion on the Talk page if you have other concerns that you would like to specifically articulate, rather than bury things an Edit summary when you are blanking a section or sections of an article[66].

For anyone else, this is just a content dispute, these are not the droids you are looking for. "Move along (click) Move along" please... :) (end of Star Wars reference) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Chris, this is not simply a content dispute. This is principally about your irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs. It's evident you never bothered to check the accuracy of the pages you link to. Itcouldn't be more obvious from the "correction" you just made to the Juelz Ventura page, where you got one of the two links wrong. Only a week or so ago you accused me of BLP zealotry after I [error removed] deleted unsourced claims that an identified living person was involved in the making of human-animal porn, a position no reasonable, honest editor would make. You went out of your way to add the BLP violation back to the Ventura article, and you never checked the article you were intent on adding a link to. Just like you never checked to begin with. Instead, you used snarky, derisive, disruptive edit summaries to divert attention from your misbehaviour. Your carelessness isn't limited to porn BLPs, although that's where your most flagrant misbehaviour occurs. Just a dayor so ago, at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, you rejected an edit as unsourced even though it clearly wasn't -- and you pretty much admitted on my talk page you did so because you hadn't even bothered to check the relevant source. And, as usual, you wouldn't admit your error, you just posted snarky and derisive comments on my talk page, where you've long been unwelcome. You've mad it clear that you don't accept BLP policy calling for dubious content to be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. You plainly don't accept policy and guideline limits on promotional content (which isn't surprising given the amount of COI editing you've done, or the fact that you've dropped your own name into articles.) But that disagreement doesn't allow you to restore BLP violations, which you have done repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That sounds like exactly how Scalhotrod is behaving with a BLP conflict with me. I sympathize with you User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am having my own difficulties with Scalhotrods "irresponsible, at best careless, at worst dishonest, approach to editing BLPs." [67][68][69][70][71]

..."narky and derisive comments". Yep, that about sums it up.🐍 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

Shark310, you forgot an important one... [72] and please learn to sign your comments, you're going to blowout the SineBot. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

yet another snarky and rude comment. No, I didnt forget it, I thought I'd let you bring it up. Because you seem to think that the result of an SPI allows you to violate BLP policy and consensus multiple times. When all else fails, bring up socking. scalhotrod seems to believe the best defense for violating policy is to attack. It really is a shame. I'm sorry Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, it sucks you have to deal with this ridiculousness. I'm having my own trouble with scalhotrod and his blatant disregard for BLP policy.Shark310(talk)🐍 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a "Snarky" comment... Anyone need a popcorn refill? I'm off to run errands... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are some long-term issues here. But this ANI only addresses an immediate issue of a wikilink that has been completely and totally solved. If there's some other issue it should be saved and brought-up in a separate ANI and this one let die. BlueSalix (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Animal porn, huh? What the heck are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On January 4, in a discussion of Squeakbox, you referred to my reversing edits you made with edit summaries (plural) referring to BLP. In the group of edits you referred to, there were only two with summaries referencing BLP. Since you took credit for the content I removed, I inferred you were responsible for it. If you now would say you were not, I'll accept that unless it's shown otherwise, although I don't understand why you would take creditfor it to begin with. The content at issue was in Pornography in Europe, and given the nature of it I'm not going to link to it directly. When I raised the same point in the January 4 discussion, in responseto your rather gratuitous and inaccurate comments about me, you didn't claim any inaccuracy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific with your allegation, cause I'm just not seeing it. The only edit I made to Pornography in Europe was this[73] on January 1 which involved Wikilinks to several other articles for directors. What does that have to do with animal porn? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're done here. Nothing worse than a mistake is proven, if that--then again, Scalhotrod, these are BLPs and the stuff should be taken seriously. Linking from porn to a non-porn person is a serious error, and can cause some real-world grief. I'm quite serious--this is not some baconated joke. The last charge, I can't quite follow it, and it seems like Hullabaloo is not pursuing it, at least not here.

  Anywayz, I was going to close this and say something like "ANI is for incidents, patterns of behavior are better addressed via a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct"--but that venue is "deprecated", which I think is a euphemism for "disappeared". In other words, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you are encouraged, if you indeed think there is a pattern here, to seek other means of dispute resolution: WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, one more thing, Scalhotrod--the kids are watching a movie in the other room so I checked on this reference of yours--I strongly encourage everyone to NOT use that kind of sourcing. I scratched it and it doesn't even smell reliable. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair point, I guess its WP:PRIMARY since its a directory of the pictorials for that person in that particular publication and its website. For the record, I was interested in the text as the source. My apologies for the mis-link in a BLP article to another BLP. I wasn't the one that originally added it, as I usually check links before hitting Save. But I'll be more diligent with my link checking. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Really? Then who used your account to make the edit that originally added it? [74] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I did indeed add that link and not check it properly. My apologies for the error. I'm not much of a sports person, so it never occurred to me that it might be someone else. Thanks for keeping me honest Wolfie... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being "much of a sportsperson". You've repeatedly trivialized BLP enforcement, particularly with regard to porn, and even when you "corrected" the Juelz Ventura article after the issue was made clear here you made exactly the same mistake by not checking the links -- fortunately this time linking to the "Eric Masterson" DAB page rather than another BLP, but that was purely by chance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And instead of dropping the WP:STICK since you have removed the section in question from the article[75], you keep moaning about it along with removing other content you WP:IDONTLIKEIT [76]. Although I find it interesting that you deleted the content mentioning that Ventura is a parent using the edit summary "spamref"[77] that cites an interview. And since the point you seem to be trying to make is about long term editing habits, that last edit is one example of how you like to remove content from adult film performer BLP articles that adds a human interest aspect to them. You're welcome to personally have as much disdain as you want for anyone, but you shouldn't be editing their articles while holding out that you're some kind of bastion of BLP integrity. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Found another one from today, same thing[78] for Nici Sterling. You deleted content about her being married, to whom, being a parent, and her sexual orientation. If you have a problem with the sources, so be it. But that is what RSN is for, not running to ANI. Have you been deleting this stuff for so long that its just a reflex and you do not consider the consequences? You've pointed me at a link that goes back over 4 years. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit, Chris, utter bullshit. The first removal you object to was a link to pornfidelity.com, a porn vendor site that is not used as a reference in any other article, and which has been removed as unreliable even by editors who routinely dispute my position on porn. The second removal you object to is a referenced to a self-published Weebly site, not the article subject's official site, which simply can't be used in a BLP. You can cast all the AGF-violating aspersions you want to, but all you're doing is placing your own good faith and/or competence under a pretty dark cloud. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

HW, I'm not claiming that ANY of those sources were stellar, but you appointed yourself "judge, jury, and executioner" of the source and the content associated with it. We're talking about simple things like being married or being a parent, not your typical "controversial, muck-raking" content that floods many mainstream celebrity or politician articles. You could simply remove the source and place a tag, but you don't, you delete and find something else to blank. Adding your crypticly short Edit summaries to the mix just makes the situation sad IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're just making stuff up now. There's no exception in BLP for "simple things". There's no exception in BLP for unsourced warm fuzzy claims. BLP is simply about getting things right, and demonstrating that Wikipedia gets things right. As Jimbo has said, and I paraphrase, saying nothing is better than saying something we can't be confident is accurate. And, Chris, your habits as a pending changes reviewer show that you don't practice what you're claiming to preach here. We all can see that you want relaxed BLP standards for porn. No reasonable editor agrees with you aboutcarving out such an exception. Harassing and haranguing editors enforcing simple, uncontroversial policy standards is disruptive misbehavior, and you're only days removed from a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior on another subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

HW, I realize that you're trying so very hard to say things and make threats to attempt to "rattle my cage" or upset me in some way. It's obvious that you're diligent Editor, but you're doing little to convince me (and many others reading this judging by the comments I recent off wiki) that you're capable of seeing a situation in any way other than your own. Time for another Popcorn break... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meatpuppetry case going after Featured Article writer Neelix

1. There's a serious case of Meatpuppetry going after Featured Article writer, editor Neelix, and unfortunately they've successfully driven him off Wikipedia entirely.
2. Sockpuppetry investigation case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang didn't show technical relations, and admin HJ Mitchell recommended DIFF that I bring this case here to ANI for something concrete to be done about this meatpuppetry.
3. An IP user commented at the SPI case page, in support and acknowledgement that it is meatpuppetry: "Hi guys there actually was like 12 different people doing these edits, not one person lol.......".
4. Admins, please, I implore you to do something about this meatpuppetry that has driven a valued Featured Article writer off this website.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly at a loss as to what the best thing to do is, which is why I suggested to Cirt that he bring it here for more eyes. This is the list from the SPI:

• Yaktaur (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• The The Fool on the Hill (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johnnydowns (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BucketPI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Dicklickerish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Vegetablelasagna1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (indef'd)
• Jdh9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 23.251.66.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.33.78.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.228.220.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 67.164.189.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (briefly blocked for disrupting the SPI)
• 69.158.90.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.72.190.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.101.26.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 96.29.171.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.231.153.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 204.187.101.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:c:5f00:8fc:80c3:5277:80bc:b8a9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They're technically  Unrelated according to CU data, so I wonder if anyone knows where they've come from... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Check the contributions of each. If you see evidence of harassment in light of the contributions of the others, then block. It is easy enough to evade checkuser if you know how the Internet address system works, and if there is a group working together to harass somebody, the sanction is the same as if it were one editor. I've blocked a few but decided not to block Johnnydowns. We should probably warn him, and then see what he does. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means, but I know enough to know that it's not that difficult to obfuscate your identity to the extend that a CU won't reveal anything useful, but the IPs are bouncing all over the place—various US cities, Toronto, London ... and they all look like home broadband ISPs. I suspect this is being coordinated from somewhere else on the Internet. I've blocked all the remaining accounts bar Jdh9 (I hadn't seen your comment wrt Jonnydowns when I did so). The pattern is clear: brand-new or long-dormant accounts have come out of nowhere, created a one-line userpage, and then immediately proceeded to remove chunks of content/participate in AfDs or otherwise cause disruption to articles, all of which were written by the same person. Call me a cynic, but that's too much of a coincidence for me. Jdh9 appears to have other interests and their response to Cirt on their talk page seems to suggest that they're as confused as we are, so I'm inclined to AGF. None of the IPs have edited recently (except the one I blocked yesterday) so I'm not going to block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that there might be some legitimate concerns regarding how to apply notability specifically in terms of theatrical performances, and have started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Notability of theatrical performances?. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been in contact with Neelix and he thinks that, at least in the short term, his retirement may be somewhat permanent. He also indicated to me a few pages which he might like to see developed, which I have indicated on his user talk page. Any help in improving any of them in his honor would be greatly appreciated. The one he thought might be most appropriate would be Homestead (Star Trek: Voyager), the episode in which Neelix left the series, and I think I may have found a few reliable sources which could be used, as I've indicated on the article talk page. Anyone familiar with developing articles on such topics is more than welcome to do so. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnnydowns and blocked user Vegetablelasagna1

1. Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) did not edit Wikipedia for three (3) years DIFF DIFF
2. Among first edits back in three (3) years is to create one-line-long-userpage DIFF.
3. First edit back in three (3) years is about "vegetable lasagna" at article Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant DIFF.
4. Compare that edit to blocked account Vegetablelasagna1.
5. Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) has also commented at two (2) AFDs related to Neelix DIFF, DIFF.

— Cirt (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody should double check, and if they agree, warn him. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman do you think comparing DIFF with account username Vegetablelasagna1 (talk · contribs) is a pretty obvious connection of meatpuppetry? — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

feel free to run a CheckUser. John Bailey Owen (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This above comment by Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) seems like baiting and evidence supporting comment by Jehochman above that the meatpuppets know how to game the Checkuser system. — Cirt (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would be pointless. We already know that these are either different people, or one person with enough brains not to reuse the same IP address. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

also, look at the text of my comments on those AFDs - I've been accused of sock puppetry from the moment I started editing. John Bailey Owen (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want editors to look at something, please provide diffs. For the moment, please just leave Neelix alone. Don't do anything to stress them out and you can go edit in peace. How's that? Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Absurd. Johnnydowns edits were actual edits, reverted by Neelix [79] with a false accusation of vandalism. Vegetablelasagna1 is one edit throwaway account that failed to CU to Johnnydowns. Neelix also had serious ownership issues with this WP:INVOLVED full protection of "their" article. (Quickly reverted by another admin, fortunately). Given they're retired, no need to pursue that further. "Featured Article" writers as just as "valued" as any other editor, and they are not entitled to special "ownership" rights to content they agreed can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone NE Ent 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure I see the point of this; it's already been run through SPI, and deletion discussions and everything else. The community's already decided what to do with these articles, more or less. I don't understand why it's necessary that someone, anyone, be punished because an experienced editor's work was seriously criticized. Risker (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• It's good to see at least some questioning of this lunacy from Risker and NE Ent. The "harassment" supposedly perpetrated against Neelix seems to be mostly that people edited and condensed articles that Neelix seems to think he owned. The real problem is that Neelix reverted good faith edits without explanation, then tried to protect "his" pages and block users who made edits he didn't like. Then he got called on it and retired. Now the users who edited the Neelix-owned pages are being blocked and run through multiple investigations. At this point it looks like Cirt is hounding people because they made edits to the pages of someone s/he's friendly with. There's no conspiracy here - multiple people just thought Neelix's owned articles needed some work. And now that the changes have been reverted, those pages still need some work, but now it seems to be impossible to do it.Wobzrem (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ludicrous. What about "vegetable lasagna" compared with DIFF made by an account that chose to name itself by username vegetablelasagna1 ? — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So just so we all have this straight, you're trying to get an editor banned (and have seemingly succeeded) because he made a minor spelling change, and one of the phrases he edited (among many legitimate edits) was also the name of what seems to be a oneoff joke account? I guess you can spell the word either "lasagna" or "lasagne" and be more or less correct, but changing it from one to the other certainly isn't a malicious edit or hounding.Wobzrem (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • "vegetable lasagna" shows the account has an interest in the subject matter, and compared with DIFF made by an account that chose to name itself by username vegetablelasagna1 it shows a stark commonality between the two accounts. — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Hello. I am one of the people who keeps being accused of being involved in this. I have been attempting to largely stay out of it because it doesn't concern me, but basically every time I log in I'm getting notifications that Cirt keeps tagging me in these investigations. I've basically given this summary 5 times now but here's what has happened from my side: I'm a polisci grad student who joined Wikipedia because I noticed that a lot of articles about notable political scientists are stubs that could use more info for students who are using Wiki as a first stop in writing research papers. I also got curious about how the admin/editing side worked, and started reading some AfD and wanted to participate in some to see how it works. I picked what I thought were relatively simple, noncontroversial articles so I wouldn't be stepping on too many toes while learning, and ironically I ended up posting on two that happened to be part of a massive shitstorm, but did not edit or touch the articles in question outside of participating in those discussions (as I was under the assumption this is not allowed...I am still unclear of whether or not I am correct in this). I become mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation, during which I explain this and ask if anyone can clarify what exactly I am being included in, and am given no answers whatsoever, despite clarifying that I am new. I assume it will take care of itself and return to editing, doing a few touchups on pop-culture related pages to practice editing before moving into stuff that requires more sourcing and work. One of these was the page for the comedy podcast Comedy Bang Bang, and which Cirt then flags because one of the sockpuppets has "bangbang" in their name. I explain, and am again ignored. Finally, I decide to just stop posting on any of this at all and start working on some of the stuff I had registered to do, and then I get flagged in this after already being cleared once and intentionally staying away from this whole situation because clearly I had no idea what was going on. I agree something fishy is happening, but I am in a "wrong place/wrong time" situation and am getting slightly sick of being steamrolled by Cirt every other day when I am largely minding my own business and only jumping in to defend myself. With all due respect, if you're worried about people being driven away from Wikipedia, assuming anyone new who steps up to participate is a troll and steamrolling them is just as big of a problem as whatever the hell was going on with the senior editor who left. I have gotten incredibly hesitant to even work on the kinds of pages I had intended to because I am worried I will be flagged or blocked if I make a mistake or I edit an article that is seemingly related to this whole thing, especially given that, as noted, any reasonable request I have made for explanations has been ignored or responded to with another notification. Not to get on a high horse, but the point of Wikipedia is mass participation from people who care and want to pitch in. This is highly discouraging. I am sorry for the length, but as you can see, I am getting very frustrated and confused.Jdh9 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Jdh9 (talk · contribs) = creates one-line-long-userpage DIFF.
2. Finds himself at AFD related to article contributed by Neelix on his fourth (4th) edit, ever DIFF.
3. On his sixth (6th) edit ever, finds himself at another AFD of article contributed by Neelix, at DIFF.

— Cirt (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to delete Jdh9 from this whole mess. Looking through his edits he sure seems legit. Don't forget he may have edited as an IP before. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see my above evidence about Jdh9 (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked, I see well reasoned arguments on a delete discussion, constructive edits on PoliSc and a really well written defense above. I smell witch hunt for this poor new editor, and I'm quick to seek bans for troublemakers. Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue to ANI, at the recommendation of admin HJ Mitchell. The diffs are quite striking. Even Hawkeye7 said: "It is very hard to believe that a new user would start editing by creating an AfD.". It is similarly hard to believe a new user would start editing by commenting at two (2) AFDs involving the same WP:FA writer Neelix. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, I recommend that you just walk away from this issue and let Neelix pursue it when they have had a break and hopefully choose to return. Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Jehochman, I'll follow your recommendation. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Based on the review of this discussion, I'm going to unblock Johnny. I think it is quite possible his involvement was purely innocent, but that some other bad users decided to pile on (without Johnny's knowledge or encouragement), and used this as an opportunity to troll poor Neelix. I'm assuming HJMitchell won't mind because he noted that he hadn't seen my "no block" comment before executing the block, and the subsequent comments after the block have been unanimously against it. Please let me know if this is a problem. Seems like it isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just wanted to make sure everyone commenting in this thread knows what's actually going on here. This all started when some members of a web forum called "Hipinion" started a thread about Neelix and his various articles. The thread seems to require registration to view now. One of their members started tweeting to Jimbo about Neelix, and the whole thing turned into a coordinated campaign for Hipinion members to either activate sleeper accounts or create new accounts to start "fixing" Neelix articles. The story has been pretty well documented on a Wikipediocracy blog post now, so it takes a whole 2 seconds of Googling to find all this information. I'm not commenting at all on the merits of their edits or on the merits of blocks that have been placed—just getting the background out there. It would probably be helpful if those of you with strong personal feelings about Neelix or Cirt would leave this to neutral parties. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral party here, as I've not edited any of the articles (nor voted to delete or merge any of them), and only found out about their existence via a post at a WikiProject. I do agree that there is a concerted and apparently coordinated effort against Neelix's articles right now. On the other hand, Neelix is unnecessarily prolix in the stand-alone articles he creates. He also created a large number of unnecessary and over-lengthy WP:CONTENTFORK articles, and they need to be trimmed of their bloat and duplication and merged into their subject articles. It would have been nice had that been able to be done in good faith rather than in bad faith. I don't know what to do about the bad-faith AfDs except to mark any suspected cabalists with the {{subst:spa|username}} or and/or {{subst:canvassed|username}} tag(s). For his stand-alone articles that are being gutted but not AfDed, if experienced and good-faith editors could put all of them on their Watch lists, that would help. I hope Neelix comes back, but I also hope someone takes him under their wing and makes sure he creates no further content forks and that he learns how to keep his writing concise and to the point, eliminating unnecessary detail and/or repetition. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirt's track record

Yeah, no. Blackmane (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Personal attacks should immediately stop. This discussion is just breeding bad blood between editors. Please stop. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Before anyone attempts to take Cirt's claims above too seriously, they should be aware that he has a tendency to contribute to witchhunts and make false connections where none exist. The best example I know of is one that occurred on Wikinews back in 2012. Pi zero made a number of false claims about several news articles I created and in response, he had several of his friends block me. Because the blocks were so incredibly bad as to be untenable, he had to find a way to make them stick, so he began to invent false sockpuppet claims. Cirt was directly responsible for helping Pi zero substantiate these claims by falsely linking my user name with numerous other accounts in an attempt to smear my name.[80][81] I think it's important that the Wikipedia community is aware of Cirt's past track record in this regard. For the record, I have never used sock puppets on Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Let's please examine the evidence at face value, thanks. Clearly admin HJ Mitchell saw the writing on the wall and realized there was an organized offsite campaign of harassment against Neelix that drove Featured Article writer Neelix off this website. — Cirt (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I'm more concerned about the innocent editors who will get smeared and blocked due to the wide dragnet you usually employ. Sorry, but based on past experience, I don't trust your judgment. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Comments above by Viriditas (talk · contribs) are ad hominem in nature, please see https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#Members where Pi zero (talk · contribs) is a most respected member of our Wikinews community, and a sitting member of its Arbitration Committee. — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I strongly disagree. The fact that you have helped Pi zero support false allegations about editors on Wikinews using CU evidence is the problem. Therefore, your judgment on this matter, which is directly related to your claims about who is and who isn't a sock puppet, is relevant to this discussion, and is not ad hominem at all. I think you're attempting to change the subject. I'm saying that people should be very skeptical about your claims here because you've worked in this area before, only to make patently false allegations about sockpuppetry in the past. As for Pi zero, he is directly responsible for the loss of dozens, perhaps hundreds even thousands of editors to Wikinews. This has been discussed in many forums already, so there's no need to go into it here. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but the links by Viriditas (talk · contribs), above are from over two (2) years ago. This seems like ad hominem to take advantage of an opportunity here to try to drag Wikinews Arbitration Committee member Pi zero through a personal vendetta by Viriditas (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) There's no statute of limitations on bad judgement, and I've already refuted your claim that this was an ad hominem by showing the direct relationship. Please don't continue to repeat the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Viriditas (talk · contribs), please don't use this as your personal forum to re-litigate things involving a Wikinews Arbitration Committee member Pi zero, here on English Wikipedia, expecting different results. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) As I predicted, you attempted to change the subject. This section is only about your past performance making sockpuppet claims agains other users, and working to spread false allegations against them. I have shown that you've done this in the past, therefore the community should be very skeptical about your judgment here. Please do not attempt to change the subject again. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Viriditas (talk · contribs), I know you still seem to be quite personally upset about being indef blocked and community sitebanned at Wikinews, but please do keep in mind that your indef block was carried out by former Arbitration Committee member Blood Red Sandman after a community ban there. — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Cirt, please stop ping bombing me with your replies. And, please stop speculating about the emotions of other editors. Finally, please stop changing the subject. This subsection isn't about Pi zero, how I feel, or who blocked me. This subsection is about your poor judgment in matters related to sockpuppetry claims. I've provided diffs up above showing that you tried to connect me to dozens of different users based on no evidence, and you did so to help Pi zero create a false rationale for keeping me blocked and banned on Wikinews. Therefore, based on your past actions related to sockpuppetry allegations, the community should be aware of your role in making and perpetuating false accusations in this matter. It follows that given your past record, your present claims here deserve extra scrutiny from disinterested parties. Frankly, you should not be even allowed to comment on such matters given your record on this subject. We simply don't need you going after more innocent users in your continued witch hunts. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I have been alerted cross-wiki to this. If you wish a review of your community ban two years ago, please request in on enwn. I am quite purposefully not commenting on (or even looking into) the matter at hand; it is a separate issue on a wiki I am not presently active on. My advice to both parties, however, would be to drop this pointless side-quest. I am so inactive here I don't feel I have anything else useful to offer to the discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) You have been erroneously alerted. I have not requested a review of either your bogus block or bogus ban; this thread is solely about Cirt's poor judgment on issues related to sockpuppetry. If this thread were related to administrative matters, then it would be focused on how the community does not trust Cirt with the admin tools, hence their removal in 2011. But it's not. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Exactly Cirt is no Crito. When Socrates was handed the hemlock it was Cirt out back brewing up a fresh batch. John lilburne (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review needed

OK, that's quite enough of that. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So, having not gotten the answer desired at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cactusjackbangbang, HJ suggests opening an ANI thread, and after getting support from no one (myself, Risker, and Wobzrem, at least) responding, decides to indef Johnnydowns anyway? Obviously there's evidence someone or someones have been a jerk towards Neelix, but it does not follow from that that anyone who's edited a Neelix created article is part of that group, and no credible evidence has been produced that Johnnydowns is part of that group. Someone please unblock Johnnydowns. (See also my request to HJ at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#ANI_notice). NE Ent 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC) It was so kind of you to notify me of his subthread, NE Ent. One day, your trolling of admin noticeboards and arbitration pages will get you banned. This community is far too tolerant of people who have no interest in writing an encyclopaedia. I suggested brining the matter here as SPI is not well-suited to investigating things that aren't sock-puppetry (there's a big clue in the "S" and the "P" of the "SPI"), and because it's clear to non-trolls that something is going on here. As it turns out, there is off-site coordination involved, apparently coming from a members-only thread on a forum somewhere. I'm not going to unblock obvious trolls who have come here from off-site to engage in a harassment campaign, and your statement disingenuously implies that there was some sort of vote and opposition to blocking these accounts and that I need the permission of you and your fellow peanut gallery members to block obvious trolls. To quote myself from my talk page: This is clearly being coordinated from somewhere, and it is damaging to the encyclopaedia. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters: this isn't a court; we don't need to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt, nobody has a legal right to edit, so the only question that matters is "is this in the encyclopaedia's best interests?". And my judgement is that allowing this nonsense, whatever its origins, to continue is absolutely not in the encyclopaedia's best interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC) This kind of personal attack is unacceptable, more so coming from an admin. NE Ent and I rarely agree on anything, but I have never seen him troll this or any other page. Your rude treatment of him for questioning your action is uncalled for here. Most editors would be blocked for such behavior. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Statements of fact are not personal attacks, much less grounds for a block. Perhaps you've seen a side of NE Ent that I'm unfamiliar with, but I've never seen him do anything but troll admin noticeboards and arbitration pages, and I'm absolutely sick of editors who spend all their time in the project space and not only contribute noting to the encyclopaedia, but actually get in the way of, slow down, or disrupt the administrative apparatus. Sadly that apparatus is a necessary part of running a large wiki, but it is a supporting apparatus—the purpose of the project is to build an encyclopaedia, and editors who have no interest in that should not be tolerated and indulged as they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) You said that NE Ent was a member of a "peanut gallery", which disregarded his opinion and attacked his credibility rather than his argument. You also accused him of trolling. So, by my count, two personal attacks sans facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC) This is the second time in a week he has personally attacked Ent. It is not a 'statement of fact' that Ent is trolling. That would require an assumption of bad faith about Ent's motives so large that questions about HJ Mitchell's fitness to be an admin now need to be asked per WP:ADMINACCT Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Wow, I criticise one editor who spend their whole time rolling admin noticeboards and arbitration pages and another one pops up! If anyone who is here to build an encyclopaedia has any questions about any of my (38,437 and counting) admin actions, my talk page is always open. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC) No you personally attacked Ent. You did not 'criticise' them. Do you feel you dont have to abide by wikipedia's basic conduct policies as per WP:ADMINACCT? Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I'm sure if the community or ArbCom believed that I felt that way I wouldn't be an admin. And I'm sure if you or NE Ent genuinely believed there was a problem with my adminning, you'd have taken me to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) User:HJ Mitchell, please remove the word "trolling" and replace it with something else. It's kind of not so nice to Ent, who doesn't just peruses admin boards but also trolls my user page and is welcome to do so. If you take out that PA, then I can just magically hat all the stuff that followed and we can focus on the topic at hand. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I want either a retraction of the blatant personal attacks or some form of admin action before this is closed thanks. And I have still yet to get an answer from HJ Mitchell as to why he feels the rules against personal attacks do not apply to him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) How about we do this is a somewhat different way: What if HJM holds in abeyance any retraction until your Mainspace edits (currently 13.6% of your total) equal or surpass your Wikipedia space edits (currently 40.4% of your total); and the same for NE Ent (8.2% vs. 43.5%). Then you'll both be actual contributing editors of the encyclopedia -- you know, the thing we're supposed to be here to help create, maintain and expand? -- and not just a couple of free riders. There will then be absolutely no question of your intended function here. BMK (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC) As for admin action against HJM - in American law, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. I'm of the opinion that the same should be true on Wikipedia when evaluating whether remarks should be met with sanctions or not. BMK (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) So you also dont feel calling someone a troll is a personal attack and by your comments about truth being a defense, endorse HJ Mitchells personal attack on Ent that he is a troll? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I said precisely what I wanted to say, if I wanted to say more, I would have, so you needn't attempt to put words into my mouth. (BTW, your last article edit was on June 12, 2014 -- that's over 7 months ago. You have no Category edits, no File edits, and only 2 Template edits from 2012. Just what the hell are you here for, anyway?) Perhaps it's time for the community to start interpreting WP:NOTHERE a bit more broadly. BMK (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I had not intended to comment here as I don't see continuing this thread benefits the encyclopedia in any manner. As it has failed to do so, I'll address some of the points made: It's not reasonable to expect an editor in an unclosed ANI thread would need to be notified about its continuance. Current policy is, per Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_noticeboards, "any user may post or take part in discussions there." If the community chooses to change that policy, obviously I will abide by whatever consensus is. While I don't wish to appear to condone attacking any other editor in general, as I don't take Wikipedia personally -- it's not about me, it's about the project -- in this case I'd prefer folks just let it go. NE Ent 03:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, it's about the project. and the project is building an encyclopedia, not whatever it is that you do. BMK (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Block review (reversal actually) still needed

Unblock request made through UTRS. No need to keep this open. BMK (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}} The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I concur the most important thing is mainspace, which is why an editor who was trying to improve it (e.g. [82]), should not be blocked for essentially being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would someone who can please unblock them now? NE Ent 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC) There should actually be a review of ALL these blocks, I'd say. I haven't looked at all the blocked users but many of them seemed to be doing constructive edits (concision, cleaning up language, trimming POV material) to articles that were overseen by a very possessive editor. User:Cactusjackbangbang and User:Johnnydowns are just the most obvious ones who seem to have been constructive editors. No one can quite seem to explain what is actually wrong about any of these edits, other than resorting to these constant accusations of puppetry of one kind or another. There seem to have been some harassing posts by IP users but most of the named users here look like they were just doing good faith edits to make the articles better. I'm not familiar enough with Wiki policy but it seems odd that these investigations keep getting closed with no evidence and yet the users being accused are being blocked anyway.Wobzrem (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Also I note that the blocked users' pages all state the reason for the blocks as suspicion of sockpuppetry. Since this has now been proven untrue (the last investigation was closed with the finding that there was no technical relation between any of the accounts) all these blocks should now be undone.Wobzrem (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Wrong. The two editors I blocked were blocked for harassment, not for sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Johnny should post an unblock request. I had previously decided not to block them, and said so here. [83][84] That decision should have been respected. I don't see that they did anything new that would have warranted a block. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) It's my understanding they've done so via UTRS; pleas see [85] NE Ent 03:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you. I will try to help process that. I see Johnny as perhaps an unlucky person who got in the middle of some sort of trollfest. It's easy enough to unblock them and say, "Don't stress Neelix," and see if they take that advice, or not. Jehochman Talk 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow the precedent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is so perfect, there's no need for reply. Jehochman ^Talk 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

It's good to see another witch hunt occurring here involving block-happy admins who like to bite newbies, a long and storied WP tradition. I suggest the easiest way to proceed here is to find out the geographic area that these IPs and accounts are editing from, then block the entire IP range of their ISP, as was done to that town in Utah in order to block User:WordBomb and Overstock.com from editing WP. User:David Gerard should have some good advice on how to do this as he was the one who made that helpful block during that epic witch hunt which helped establish WP's standards for witch hunts that you all are ably following. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A loose end remaining

User:Vegetablelasagna1's block notice states that s/he is blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Johnnydowns, however Johhnydowns is no longer blocked for sockpuppetry. Could the sock master of Vegetablelasagna be changed, perhaps to User:Cactusjackbangbang?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring user

A user is edit warring in the Antonio Biaggi article

Proof of the edit warring Weegeerunner (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an edit warring noticeboard located here where your post might be better suited. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I reverted the blanking, and gave him an only warning.

Also, at this point AI/V might be a better option.-- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 23:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Breaking of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Raquel Baranow was unblocked in 2012 on condition to avoid editing on subjects such as 9/11 and the Holocaust, due to repeat soapboxing and pushing of fringe views, as seen on her website. http://666ismoney.com/

She has been editing the Charlie Hebdo article in relation to Holocaust denial, rather than to the subject at hand. Even if it can be perceived that it is accurate to mention Holocaust denial in that article (I strongly disagree, Charlie Hebdo did not write the law saying that it is illegal in France), the user is breaking a topic ban. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really true, here's the diff, I mention Hate Speech Laws, which is more relevant than Laws against holocaust denial also note the Talk page discussion I started, a Google search of "Charlie Hebdo" + Holocaust brings better results (see also the Google images) than "Charlie Hebdo + "Hate Crime". Also note in the Talk Page (linked above), the suggestion I posed was adopted dif. Here's a couple of very popular cartoons showing how popular the double-standard is with the application of hate crime laws in France. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't get it. If that diff (which was supplied by Raquel Baranow, not by the plaintiff) is all there is, then where's the problem? Charlie Hebdo is mentioned in that article, and even if they weren't, their 2006 case is well known. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How ironic that such a devoted conspiracy theorist is throwing this diff down the memory hole. And if Dieudonné and Carlos Latuff see hypocrisy, that goes in their articles, as it's their opinion. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We have absolutely no reason to trust editing on such a subject from somebody who has a topic ban for tedentious fringe pushing and who brazenly advertises their anti-Semitic and pseudoscientific website. Raquel's only reason to add anything at all to the article was to reflect her own gripe with laws in France, which aren't the fault of Charlie Hebdo at all and should be put in a different place. The laws themselves are linked in the Charlie Hebdo article in an appropriate place and putting them in the See Also section is undue, on a tangent and WP:POINT. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please put .50 c in the sarcasm jar. If you want something to be done by the admins you're going to have to help them out a little bit--this arrogance, as if we're all supposed to know the ins and outs of her topic band, is just not helpful.

OK. Ten minutes later I learned something. WP:Editing restrictions has nothing, but her talk page is full of things (thank you Raquel for not blanking it). But I can't figure out what the current situation is--whether a one-year topic ban from 2009 is still in effect, and how, and et cetera. So I'll ping some admins and editors who were involved, and they turn out to be big shots. TParis, you first: you unblocked her in 2012, I think. Jehochman, Orangemike, Mathsci, Sandstein, Jpgordon: tag, you're it. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the unblock, the UTRS ticket (1024), the topic ban, and this complaint has me feeling rather disappointed. I expected something...better. I find tAD's failure to mention it was a 1-yr topic ban made 3 years ago rather disingenuous. Per my essay WP:ANI Advice #14, a user's past is only relevant if it's less than a year, maybe two, old and deals with the same behavior. What the OP is complaining about is not that Rachel is necessarily wrong but that she edited in contravention of a 3 yr old now expired topic ban. There is nothing to discuss here, tAD failed to substantiate a behavioral dispute. This is strictly a content dispute. That said, it should be a reminder for Rachel that she can have her views and opinions but anything expressed in articles must reflect scholarly mainstream reliable sources and she should make every effort not to even give the appearance of pushing a fringe view.--v/r - TP 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, having looked into this a few hours ago. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Five Guys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First: I am in violation of 3RR at Five Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am self-reverting my most recent revert solely for this reason, not because I agree with the user involved.

Normally I would next take this to the article talk page, to work through normal dispute resolution channels (and I plan to take it to that forum next). However, I am reporting myself here for community review of my actions.

Due to an apparent dynamic IP that was repeatedly adding poorly sourced criticism (Google search results initially, then to tripadvisor and blog reviews) I had semi-protected the article. A named user which had then been inactive then made the same revert. I initially blocked the user, then lifted that block myself - as I realized that as an involved party, I should instead be using WP:DR. Initial discussions of the content can be found at user talk:Barek#Five Guys' music and warnings at User talk:95.150.189.151. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it may not be obvious, I want to point out that there is a relationship between this page and the Gamergate controversy that is currently at ArbCom. Due to WP:BEANS and WP:BLP, I'm not going to explain what the relationship is, but I'll point it out, in case it is drawing any disruptive accounts to the Five Guys page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support semi-protection to prevent the problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't help with the autoconfirmed user whom Barek blocked/unblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, 3RR: presumably Barek isn't planning on continuing, so sanctions for 3RR would be out of place; I would say this with a non-admin just as readily, because sanctions should be preventive, not punitive. Semiprotection looks right, and if anyone complains on WP:INVOLVED grounds about Barek doing it, I'll satisfy them by lifting and restoring the semiprotection. I don't understand why User:Ivanruss was blocked (he made the same type of edits as the IPs, but I don't see anything by Barek saying that he was blocking Ivanruss on socking-related grounds), but since he's been unblocked, there's nothing to do. We just need to watch and continue reverting problems if they get added. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that the removal of poorly-sourced material was justified, although I do caution Barek on the slightly... overzealous use of admin tools in the future. But there's no sense of crying over spilled milk and the right outcome resulted in the end. Like Nyttend said, we'll just need to monitor the article better in the future to prevent questionable material from being inserted. —Dark 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• No comment other than the involved blocking is problematic. Even with the unblock, it's still in the user's logs. Don't do that again. That said, we all make mistakes and owning up to it is a good thing. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BLP violations etc at Targeted Individual

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Targeted Individual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clinicallytested (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cnn somebody do something about the Targeted Individual article? It is a recreation of a previously-deleted fringe conspiracy-theory article which stands no chance of surviving the current AfD. [86] Not only does it report claims of "torture", "abusive surveillance" and "stalking" as fact, but the creator, User:Clinicallytested, is now edit-warring to keep entirely unsourced assertions regarding named supposed "targeted individuals" in the article - an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. Clearly Clinicallytested needs to be blocked, but I have to suggest that the best way to deal with this nonsense is to close the AfD now, and delete and salt the article. It might also be worth looking at the edit history to the previous version (I can't, not being an admin) to see if Clinicallytested is, as I suspect, a sock of a banned user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Following a final warning I issued, CT restored the article minus the BLP part. Looks like the AfD is heading for a snowball delete, though I'd personally give it a little more time.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick google search returned this result - Targeted Individuals. Don't know if it's related to the current article and/or editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but Bachcell (talk · contribs) was notified of the first AfD, so they appear to have been the creator. bobrayner (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I slapped {{userspace draft}} on that page Isaidnoway found (to get it to stop showing in Google searches, for one), and reverted Clinicallytested's inclusion of it in mainspace categories, as is standard for userspace drafts. But given the long history of articles on this material being created and then deleted (and the fact this userspace draft has an editing history involving substantially more than just its user), courtesy blanking or a visit to MFD might also be appropriate. Shalom11111 hasn't edited in some months, but I've gone ahead and notified him as a courtesy issue since his userspace is now involved here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Clinicallytested has been blocked 24h by Ohnoitsjamie. I imagine a few people have added Targeted Individual to their watchlists. bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that the AfD has been closed, I've salted the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible COI and ownership issue at Philadelphia Church of God‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the article Philadelphia Church of God‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed the most recent edit-summary by PetPeeves (talk · contribs) suggests they have both a conflict of interest and a ownership issue, where they state: "if you're not associated with the organization -- you do not get to have input on this page or any other page related to Gerald Flurry, Philadelphia Trumpet, or PCG". [87]

I have warned the user over the apparent COI issue, but would welcome additional eyes to review the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues, POV issues, puffery, coatracking... Trimming heavily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spammer making legal threats

Resolved

Any admin need practice with the blocking button? [88] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wizardman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have had it with this Wizardman character. i have been an editer for almost 6 years now and all he has done is delete my edits. I ask him why and he says "if I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here." --Elijahadmire (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You missed off the first part of Wizardman's explanation. The full statement is "They were deleted because you were illegally copypasting content to make articles, a blatant copyright violation. Given that this is not the first time I've had problems with you, if I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here." Squinge (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Dropped a notification on Wizardman's talk page, which you should have done @Elijahadmire:. Blackmane (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly violated the copyright policy for at least the past 1.5 years [89], disregarding multiple warnings pretty much everything on their talk page. There are no excuses.

[I]f I catch you making disruptive edits one more time you're gone from here.

I disagree. He should have indeffed you on the spot. MER-C 01:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Elijahadmire: Copyright infringement is not a joke. You've had multiple warnings to refrain from copy-pasting, you will not receive another one. —Dark 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You should be thanking Wizardman for being lenient and not banning you on the spot. Copyright infringement is not OK here, not ever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Views, please, on whether his most recent article creation – Burrantown, Texas – is a copyvio of this - the odd word has been changed but the structure is identical. I'm tempted to delete and indef, but as we're here anyway, some additional comments wouldn't go amiss. Bencherlite^Talk 10:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a look earlier today after MER-C's comment but didn't have time for a detailed look. On a closer inspection, the phrasing is way too close despite the change of words into numbers. Might have a browse through some of his more recent edits. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Following up. Brumberg, Texas, Ashby, Texas, Robbin's Ferry all have issues. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Go with your instinct, Bencherlite. The user apparently has trouble hearing copyvio and other warnings. Also, there's a competence problem in the way they have copied text from the internet and changed good words in the source to bad words for Wikipedia (as the change established —> the nonsensical situated in both Burrantown, Texas and Brumberg, Texas), apparently purely to "avoid" copyright violation. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

• I checked a bunch of user's new creations and without fail tagged every one to delete as copyvio. There's many more I haven't looked at; it seems a reasonable assumption all substantial contributions are likely to require checked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Elijahadmire, I think there's an L-shaped wooden thing that's turned around in mid flight and come back and hit you in the face. With only around 695 edits over 5 years you're probably not close to understanding what a COPYVIO is and it's time for you to find out the hard way. You don't know, and couldn't be bothered to find out, who or what 'this Wizardman character' is either. I think we can safely leave this up to Wizardman's 'One more time'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Bencherlite^Talk 15:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese)

Discovery: the user is CoUser1 (talk · contribs) (account is globally locked).

85.247.82.66 (talk · contribs) (now 81.193.35.193 (talk · contribs), previously 85.243.156.131 (talk · contribs), 85.247.74.165 (talk · contribs), and probably 2001:8A0:7D00:1F01:B148:F0B1:8616:1905 (talk · contribs)) is a Portuguese user that enjoys disrupting Wikipedia. The user has been doing it for a long time now. User is known for refusing to sign posts and edit warring in association football related articles, specially the ones about Portuguese football or related. User has been blocked many times before and locked many articles.

If you compare the behaviour of these long list of IPs it is obvious that is the same user: 81.193.33.116 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.2.151 (talk · contribs) - 85.243.159.93 (talk · contribs) - 85.242.88.88 (talk · contribs) - 85.245.58.1 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.84.149 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.1.124 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.38.238 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.0.186 (talk · contribs) - 85.242.88.77 (talk · contribs) - 85.245.80.80 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.3.27 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.75.207 (talk · contribs) - 85.241.163.234 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.87.43 (talk · contribs) - 85.243.159.85 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.68.19 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.71.74 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.39.162 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.33.39 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.33.11 (talk · contribs) - 81.193.2.15 (talk · contribs) - 85.247.90.217 (talk · contribs) - and others. SLBedit (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know that I looked at this, and though on the surface it appears the IPs are related, there doesn't seem to be any possible range blocks that would not have collateral damage, i.e., inadvertently blocking productive users. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: now Tesd52 (talk · contribs) is a suspect of sock puppetry. User told me to that I can't edit his club's article and that he doesn't care if I "cry" and "complain", also saying that he could have vandalized the rival's article if he wanted to. He also wrote in Portuguese and attacked me like the other IPs (85.243.156.131 (talk · contribs) and 81.193.35.193 (talk · contribs)) did recently in the same article. See this history page. SLBedit (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think Tesd52 is a sock of CoUser1, you should file a report at the sockpuppetry board WP:SPI. You need to notify Tesd52 that you mentioned him at this board. You can do so using the template provided at the top of this page. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tesd52 has been blocked for ban evasion. SLBedit (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked the account for a week for evading the blocks issued to the IPs, edit warring, and engaging in personal attacks. Please see 1, 2, 3, 4. Mike V • Talk 03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

32.218.37.86 disruptive editing.

This user has done some of my edits that I made to some Wisconsin city articles updating URLs and removing un-needed URLs. I warned the user and he is blanking his talk page of those warnings. Asher Heimermann (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Asher Heimermann has been systematically removing the formatting from article links (e.g., [90], [91], [92]) and removing useful links from the External links section of city articles. These include links to history articles, maps, libraries, school districts, and more (e.g., [93], [94], [95]). I am certainly not the only one who thinks that Asher Heimermann's unformatting of links has been less than helpful (see: [96], [97]), but he continues his rampage ([98], [99]). None of the external links were added by me. I was simply reverting Asher Heimermann's vandalism. WP:BOOMERANG would seem to apply here. 32.218.37.86 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, I was removing long lists of external links that were outdated, expired domains as well as removing external links that had nothing to do with the main article itself. Links normally to be avoided are; websites of organizations and Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. User:32.218.37.86 has been warned, "Wikipedia is not a link directory. If you continue restoring long lists of external links, you will be blocked from editing." by another Wikipedia user. In addition, User:32.218.37.86 keeps blanking his talk page of warnings and calling our warnings "BS". Asher Heimermann (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Asher, I'm concerned about your deletions too. In particular, I put in a lot of work linking in the old maps of cities from wisconsinhistory.org. I don't see how these map links meet any of your criteria for deletion above. They are directly related to the subject; e.g. the links to old maps of Marshfield are in the article on Marshfield. And they are useful, since search engines don't seem to easily find them in WHS's website. Could we discuss before deleting? Jeff the quiet (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeff, my concern about these "maps" are their relationship to the article. There is no mention in the article relating to the linked maps. Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example? I think they're all related, as in the Marshfield example above. Jeff the quiet (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Asher at his talk page to stop the removals while this discussion is on-going. 32.218.37.86, could you also agree to stop the reverts of the removals as this discussion continues? only (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've stopped removing the map links. However, other removals are needed. Wikipedia is not a link directory or 311/411 site. Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reverting over 2 hours ago, when Asher Heimermann started harassing me. I only reverted 4 of his ~100 edits, anyway, and he re-reverted them. 32.218.37.86 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a few links to historical societies/old maps are usually OK (as long as they aren't being canvassed by single purpose COI accounts). We certainly don't need links to every school/church/etc. per WP:NOT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at Asher Heimermann's edits, you would have seen that he's not removing spam. He's messed up link formatting (e.g., [100], [101]); he's removed links to historic maps (e.g., [102], [103]); he's removed links to online historical collections about a city held by a major university library (e.g., [104]); he's removed official links to public libraries, school districts, and local historical societies (e.g., [105], [106]). In his overzealousness he has removed an occasional link that does not meet WP:EL criteria, but 90% of everything he's removed is valuable to readers. 32.218.37.86 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:ELNO. I try to keep the main links to the subject of the article. So keep links to official city/town/village websites and the local Chamber of Commerce and/or library depending on community. I remove links to schools, libraries, etc. because they don't belong there. Asher Heimermann (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:ELNO that says that links to official websites, such as school districts, public libraries, and historical societies are forbidden. In fact, per WP:ELYES, such sites are informative, factual, and functional and "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". 32.218.37.86 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute and belongs on the article's talk pages. At this point, the only problem worthy of an administrator's attention is the original reporter's bringing this here in the first place. Best advice to all---drop the stick here, go to the talk pages and fix the problem. If you cannot form a consensus with other interested editors there, ask at the projects that watch the articles or ask for WP:DR. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:TheriusRooney

User:TheriusRooney recently created Panoz_PZ09 for which I could find no mention on google. When questioned, provided a source that mentioned Panoz PZ09C, but could not show any references to PZ09. I checked the users previous contributions and found hundreds of unsourced additions.
Just from this past week:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panoz_Esperante&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yokohama_Rubber_Company&diff=643335432&oldid=631638111
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Super_GT_season&diff=643331702&oldid=643308752
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_GT&diff=643333147&oldid=641941218
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronas&diff=642747820&oldid=633295941
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Corvette_C6.R&diff=642870258&oldid=631995989

I don't know if this counts as vandalism, or neglegence of WP:CITE, or what. But, it's a lot of content over a long period of time, and much of it may be correct, so I figured I would bring it to the attention of the Admins.
Deunanknute (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Therius was mentioned at AN/I one month ago without action taken, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Possible disruptive editing. Perhaps this time it can be given the proper attention. ansh666 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I raised that discussion. My feeling is that Rooney is acting in good faith, but doesn't really understand what WP is for. Not sure about this instance though. See this post on my talk page.

Also, I will add that this user has never responded to any post on their talk page except recently. So, in my opinion, putting anything on their page is purely for procedure. --Stratocaster27^t@lk 06:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• At 08:49, 20 January 2015 Trungedm started an article Naturalopy.
  • At 08:54, 20 January 2015 Deunanknute speedy-delete-tagged it as "Nominated page for deletion using Page Curation (speedy deletion-vandalism, speedy deletion-advertising, speedy deletion-no context, speedy deletion-significance" (i.e. WP:G3, WP:G11, WP:A1, WP:A7).
  • At 10:24, 20 January 2015 I deleted it.
  • At 04:39, 21 January 2015‎ Trungedm put a threat of legal action in his own and my user talk pages: it is at User talk:Trungedm#Speedy deletion nomination of Naturalopy.

  See Special:Contributions/Trungedm and Special:DeletedContributions/Trungedm.

  His tradename 'Naturalopy' occurs never in non-deleted articles, but in seven user discussion pages.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Trungedm

• 03:54, January 20, 2015 - I submitted the newly created article Naturalopy for deletion, and left notice on the creator Trungedm's talk page.
• 05:24, January 20, 2015 - The article was deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard for speedy deletion criteria G3, G11, A1, A7.
• 15:12, January 20, 2015‎ - Trungedm contacted me on my talk page [[107]], requesting I remove all instances of the word "Naturalopy" from wikipedia, citing that he was the trademark holder.
• The rest of our conversation can be found here [[108]] on his talk page where he accused both Anthony Appleyard and myself of slander and threatened legal action.
• Please take whatever action you deem necessary. Deunanknute (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - This incident is a duplicate of the one listed right above this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Esquire1172

This user initially posted to the Eliot Cutler page (a Maine gubernatorial candidate) under the username Eliotrcutler; after posting a username notice on the page, they requested a change to Esquire1172 which was granted, but on their userpage they claim to be Eliot Cutler, saying "Though I am indeed that public figure, I am happy to change my user name and will do so momentarily.". Their edits don't seem to be particularly problematic but I'm not sure if something needs to be done here. If it is Mr. Cutler there is a COI issue. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

He seems like an experienced candidate. Could he be that stupid? More likely an imposter.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but I'm not sure if something should be done about the claim. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban?

• Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WhisperToMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am not involved directly in this dispute. I found it in October 2014 following up on Skookum1's concerns of copyright violation in the article Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver (my first note on the topic). I found no evidence of copyright problems but was shocked by the hostile tone I found Skookum1 taking with WhisperToMe.

explanation of concerns

From that thread on that date alone: "your complete ignorance of the subject matter"; "half-informed comments"; "your presumptiveness"; "arrogant rubbish"; "your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking." (All still visible at Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#Focus of this article.) WhisperToMe subsequently requested my assistance with ongoing incivility (see recent talk page note, including some examples of edits that concerned him; also older note)). Particularly concerned to find he had left this hidden note in article space, I wrote on Skookum1's talk page on 30 December urging him to calm the discussion down and work towards dispute resolution, or I would be seeking an interaction ban. (See the conversation in context as of this writing here.) The situation is not improved: "Here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed." (1/4); "Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and LEARN SOMETHING instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (1/6; emphasis in original) Skookum1 claims the incivility is mutual, but the only example I've found cited of incivility from WhisperToMe is in his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective. To quote Skookum1, from January 4th: "I want verifiability and proof what you're saying' is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Wikipedia content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally very flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas). This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to Skookum1's 10/23 note that said, in part: I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province which you are NOT.... Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything. WhisperToMe has recently filed a request for intervention at WP:NORN (thread) which may or may not be derailed by this battlefield behavior, although I note that Skookum1 has produced some sources, perhaps in response to that thread. I considered waiting in case that was revolved, but I think that the battlefield behavior (even in that post, he attacked WhisperToMe) is once again escalating and in any case has gone on long enough.

Unless somebody has any other ideas for how to stop this, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. A limited duration may be enough to do it - perhaps until the core issue is settled by others - but I think the behavior here is toxic, a violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and especially WP:DEPE. Skookum1 undoubtedly will feel that this interaction ban should be mutual; I think a mutual interaction ban would be better than no interaction ban, but would suggest a one-way interaction ban restricting Skookum1 from engaging WhisperToMe unless there is significant evidence that WhisperToMe has been incivil beyond his requesting verification of his Canadian elder. Skookum1 has voiced his concerns about this article; if he withdraws from the conversation, perhaps others can see it through.

This is out of my usual area (copyright), but I really can't stand by and not try to do something when I see a situation like this. I believe that fights of this sort can and do wreak havoc on Wikipedia. I think it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If I might register a non-administrative opinion. First, I appreciate Moonriddengirl attempting to assist an editor who feels accosted. Many editors of all stripes lately seem unwilling to do that because of the pain and suffering it usually entails with no reward. That said, I think Skookum1 is simply expressing natural frustration at a proposal that seems to be pushed at a more rapid rate than is perhaps advisable. WTM and Skookum appear to be the only two editors active on this topic which seems to be the genesis of conflict. Instead of an IBAN, I would personally volunteer to involve myself in this article to increase the range of voices, if the discussion could be restarted in the form of a new and fresh proposal and the previous 3 sections archived. That might be unconventional but an IBAN should really be avoided in this case if at all possible IMO as it would leave the article derelict of editors. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a new proposal. Perhaps the reason why I have been pushing strongly first for a rename, and then a split, is because I created the article to focus on Vancouver in particular. The user unilaterally moved it and changed the focus, and my move proposal (my way of opposing the unilateral move) failed. - My guess on why this behavior is this way has to do with Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion. I first started Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. After he suggested making a Indo-Canadians in British Columbia I started it, and the interaction went south. I had the impression he thought the content from other parts of the province was neglected, so I would make one to collect the rest of the info, but he saw it as preventing a merge/page move he felt should take place. I was seeing as "I started the article on the subject I want to write about, and you can write about the subject you want to write about here, so we both can be happy". In retrospect I should have made a userspace draft as such a thing is easily reversible and not on the mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user began here:

WhisperToMe's note

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#If you make articles on ethnic Indian populations in Canada, be sure to include info on Air India 182's impact on the community. For full disclosure: There was one edit in October I made where I was criticized by User:Antidiskriminator, in Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion (background is in the first post about Air India) - He argued that I had made an error in conduct See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ): "Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So what do we have? [...]" Talk page discussions about the reply: User talk:WhisperToMe#Indo-Canadians User talk:Antidiskriminator#Conduct issues I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: User talk:Skookum1#"that merge discussion" On 2 November User:Blueboar asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Should titles/focuses of articles be determined through reliable sources or personal experiences and opinions? and Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#Seek a third opinion please In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Third opinion "Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My past interactions with Skookum1 were not so positive and in line with the behavior quoted above. He went to the wall saying nasty things to defend an erroneous news report about a birth name at Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, a position overturned by other editors in a RfC. A one way interaction ban may be justified. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only had positive experiences with Skookum1 and I don't see anything here that's really terrible. But as I said, I'm happy to become active in this thread as a third voice if both parties think that would be helpful and a fresh start to whatever the major edit question going on here could be proffered via a new section and the closing/archiving of all previous discussions. DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's okay, Document, would it be alright if you commented on the following views from me? These are my observations on the matter.

WhisperToMe's observations

Everyone comes in with a set of knowledge, and some people do know more about a subject than others. Wikipedia is very clear that verifiability is an important cornerstone, and so even if you know something, you have to present evidence (as per WP:V). The requirement for exact page cites/chapter cites is not instruction creep, and it's not a trivial/unimportant detail. It's meant to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and I don't want to be caught in a "you think you know but it just ain't so" situation. It's also why possession of the works you are citing from is very important, so you can go back and double-check what they say. Especially after the Essjay incident there is a reason to strongly emphasize "these are the sources I have, here are the page numbers, this is what the text says" versus "this is who I am" and trying to use that as leverage in a discussion Somebody else brought that up here: Talk:Chipewyan#Requested move 2 "Per Kwami, also I want to see reliable sources that establish that one usage is now more common or preferred over another - we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works." (from User:Maunus) - I think this point needs to be strongly reinforced. @Maunus: Many replies are way too long. The personal tone and length makes them unpleasant to read, and I think this discourages other people from participating in the discussions. I think people said nothing to try to make it go away, but I think the best thing to do now is to address it. I think I have my own problem with making "lists of sources" too long, so a trick I have decided to do from now on is hatting the lists of sources/concerned edits so people aren't scared by the length of the reply. When you edit a super-local topic, many readers/fellow editors won't be from the area. Things that seem obvious to you are in fact not obvious. It means having patience with people not from the area, and taking extra effort to cite your sources to verify what you know. It is necessary to see all editors as equals, even those who are new and not from your area, even those of a different age.

What do you think of these comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've had plenty of patience with you, despite your ongoing impatience and imperious judgment-mongering and very often rephrasing/distorting what I said; as has the even more uninformed person on your latest RfC on that page. When I mention other wikipedia articles, or events I know from my own readings on talkpages demanding page-cites rather than simple book cites is NOT called for by WP:V; I've given plenty of talkpage "here, go read this" recommendations and instead seeking help combating me.....he doesn't see me as an equal, but as an enemy. I think your comments are just more of teh same; you rejected me as a local informant right off the bat and there's another OR/ANI in the archives about that....and this is not a "super-local topic", this is a general history of a major Canadian province, with much more depth and breadth than he understands... or is even willing to give some t hought to, instead treating all I say with AGF and an implicit NPA. And Maunus, Maunus is a fierce Skookum1 hater see Talk:Chaouacha; his comments there should have seen him banned for life, instead here you are resarching what others ahve said about me instead of researching the topic as I have been doing while you have been ranting about me...to try and rfield the very sources you're too preoccupied with opposing me to deign to look for.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "fierceSkookum1 hater" I am a colleague who has found it very hard to collaborate with you for the same reasons WhispertoME is mentioning. 1. Your idea that your personal knowledge and identity has any relevance or validity as leverage in discussions or as a source of information for articles. 2. Your egocentered, abrasive and agressive argumentation style, and your extreme longwinded rambling answers. Yes I have had my temper flare up in our discussions with you and said rude things, but not an ounce ruder than you have treated myselkf and others, and not an ounce ruder than you have deserved. You are an angry mastodon to be sure, but one with extremely thin skin - you like to give out thrashings left and right, but act like an offended 4 year old when someone gives you back. Whenever you have decided to stick to the point, argue based on sources and rational argumentation, and follow basic policy I have had no problem with you. That has not been as often as I would have wished, but it has happened on several occasions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

given the amount of time this hornswoggle ANI has already taken, I'm not going to bother to do dig up your various explicit hostilities abut me, or the ANI you launched which was full of lies I did not bother responding to but did comment later when it was archived, and saw that reversed; that ANI, groundless and NPA as it was, was closed "no result". That "angry mastodon" comment is far worse than my "linguistics cabal" caution which earned me a block warning; you say rude things all the time, and distort things I and others have said; and in the case of BC history and geography, the idea that my knowledge has "[no] relevance or validity" is poppycock; I've been trying to help and educate him and pointing him at things he should be reading and providing examples of things that put the lie to gaffes and simplistic distortions/generalizations in his selection of academia and political writings. He's been the one rejecting me, not wanting to listen to me, instead seeking support to silence or negate me, or as with recruiting you here, to denounce me. INSTEAD of researching content/sources as I have been doing while all his ranting, and this ANI, has been going on.

I know the material, know what sources have what in them, even if I can't provide page-cites (which aren't needed on talkpage discussions though he's behaving as if they were), and have a concern that "fair" coverage of "white" British Columbians is not being provided by those sources, or his selections from them. He's the one more concerned with opposing the very person he could learn much from; the article is a pastiche of TRIVIA and UNDUE and sometimes even what amounts to SPAM; but he doesn't know the province or its milieu, only what he reads in academia and what he's looking for to bolster his line of thinking. But these are wasted words on you, you don't see that he's doing the same "walls of text" and BLUDGEONing behaviour I so regularly get accused of and that nearly anything he comments about me or to me is AGF/NPA as if, to quote you, "we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that" in our own uncalled for AGF/NPA campaign to block all those the RMs on all those speedies hat Kwami pulled without discussion and proceeded to tooth-and-nail any attempt to revert them to their stable and wiki-consistent forms they had had for so long..... on BC history and geogrpahy, I'm the "go-to guy" for resources and clarifications; here I'm being treated as a liar and "not to be believed".Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing weird in not wanting to take your word for anything, or in not accepting your personal knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you about a million times it is basic policy. We cite sources. What your karate teacher told you over lunch is not a source. Regardless of how knowledgeable he or she is. (I am not making this up, Skookum used something his karate teacher has told them regarding the preferred endonym of the Mi'kmaq people as an argument in a move discussion). I very rarely see you providing any written or online sources for your statements, much less pagenumbers which - yes can be a requirement if others are not otherwise able to find the source and verify it. I do assume good faith from you. What I dont assume from you anymore is competence. Especially social competence. By the way if people end up handing out interaction bans I wouldnt mind a mutual one with Skookum1 as well. Very rarely does anything good come from us crossing paths. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: What page discussion are you referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the exact page right now, but it was somewhere in the loooong discussion that lead up to this which took page at different talkpages, wikiproject pages and article discussions. It was a minor part of the great Indigenous Naming War between Skookum1 and Kwamikagami. I am pretty sure that he mentioned earlier that one of the "acquaintances" he mentioned that he had consulted and wished to use as support for his argument was a martial arts teacher. Meanwhile he never linked to any of the very good Mikmaq dictionaries and discussions about the nomenclature that are reliable published and available online. It is not the only time that I have argued with him and he has insisted that his knowledge from acquaintances and personal experience trumps reliably published sources. That has been the main source of frustration in interacting with Skookum1, that and his belligerence. Actually I share most of his political and cultural views, but nonetheless he tends to paint me as "cultural imperialist exploiting/insulting native people" in these discussions. He even does this with some of our Native American editors when they disagree with him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Definitions of Indo-Canadian: "Point is about Duncan is one of my good friends in BC was raised there; he's Sikh, but lives now in Richmond; his life cannot be separated by arbitrary titling judgements made by someone in Texas who only knows about the place through books he's found so far. You sourced Kelowna but did you know to include West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country which are part of "Greater Kelowna". Of course not, because you have no idea where you're talking about. BTW the mayor of Lillooet I spoke about, his extended family is in Kelowna, I worked under his nephew (a film producer, now deceased) who lived in Burnaby; as with many IC families, they are not limited by the boundaries of Greater Vancouver, nor should your neophyte article be so limited; your opposition to the marge and the way you are doing it is obstructionist and your behaviour very questionable." - Do you mean something like this? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Personal anecdotes offered as supporting evidence for arguments about how to write articles. And hostility and aspersions to those who point out that it is not a valid form of evidence or argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: WP:V says: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - What I want out of this discussion is not an interaction ban, but the Wikimedia community making it clear that published sources are the be-all-end-all on Wikipedia and that this is not a trivial point and it needs to be understood by everyone. I had attempted to make this clear at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Should titles/focuses of articles be determined through reliable sources or personal experiences and opinions?.

• @0x0077BE: had said: "Is anyone disagreeing with you (other than Skookum1) on the question of whether it would be OR to determine article titles or content based on personal experience? That's pretty much the definition of OR. I'm guessing it's not hard to find a consensus on that."
• On that OR noticeboard page I referred to this statement by Skookum Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver#This is all the more reason for there to NOT be two articles: "The Indo-Canadian experience and community you only know second-hand through your precious books; I'm personally interconnected to it and, as a long-standing BC editor who's contributed reams to Wikipedia about my home province, know what I'm talking about. YOU don't, no matter how many books or quotes your throw at me....or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case."

The OR page does say "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" - But I feel when someone is trying to determine article content, it should apply.

I don't want this issue to slip away. I want it clarified. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, in response to your request for a comment from me let me say that I understand and empathize with your frustration. However, I think that when you have two editors with diametrically opposed editorial viewpoints editing in a single niche article in which no other editors are active, this is a situation that often develops after a protracted period (and it seems this has been a slow devolution that's occurred over a period of time). I don't know anything about you, but you seem like a fine editor. I have edited on a couple of occasions with Skookum1 and have had nothing but a pleasant experience at those times, even though (IIRC) we were on the opposite ends of a content debate.

I don't believe either you or Skookum1 has done anything that can't be chalked up to the natural evolution of human emotions and interaction in this circumstance. Taking a holistic view with all that under consideration I just don't believe there's anything here that can't be addressed through a fresh start supported by the introduction of one or two additional GF editors into this article to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints. The only thing I can say at this point is that, again, I am happy to provide myself as one of those viewpoints if the two of you think that is an advisable path forward (if so, someone please leave a message on my Talk page as I'm unlikely to check this thread again). The topic of this article is not one in which I have any interest at all so I probably could be effectively neutral. Again, these are just my drive-by observations and they might be wrong (maybe massively so). DOCUMENT★ERROR 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:DocumentError, I appreciate your feedback here, particularly as I'm concerned that this may turn into yet another filibuster, but I would ask you: do you think that hidden, personal comments about other editors are appropriate in article space, such as this one? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, Maggie Dennis (WMF), I didn't see that comment until you posted it just now. That said, I don't find it that egregious. It was certainly a pointed remark, but within a holistic view of the evolution of the Talk page, I didn't think it was really outrageous. Skookum1 seems frustrated by repeated calls for the presentation of RS in Talk, while WTP is frustrated by Skookum1's expression of his frustration. IMO, neither editor is really at fault, this is just one of the daily conflicts of life. That said, you seem better informed generally of the situation than I am so if there was a more sinister subtext which I did not pick-up on I, of course, trust your judgment. As I noted below, my original comment was really just a drive-by observation and should not be taken with any more gravity or import than that. If it was not helpful, I apologize. DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DocumentError, I believe feedback is always helpful, especially in cases where people may be reluctant to wade in. Although I disagree with you about the egregiousness of bringing personal disputes into article space, I appreciate your opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Moonriddengirl, I was multi-tasking and didn't notice the edit in question was in article space as opposed to talk space. I strike my comment (without prejudice to either editor). DOCUMENT★ERROR 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite right, DocumentError; I name RS all the time, including many accepted as valid on various other pages about "content WMT doesn't know or care about [yet]" or just doesn't want to admit could be real. His interpretation of RS and V is that page-cites are "required", which as per my other comment about that below, is NOT what WP:V or WP:RS say; he's extrapolating and projecting instruction creepage with his personal "synth" of what he claims the guideline says but doesn't, and then being all wiki-cop about it saying he'll delete anything that doesn't have a page cite. WTF? Who's he to be so high-handed about things he doesn't know about when he's only just begun to be even aware of BC history, never mind its social geography and the political complexities he's wading into (and I don't mean ethno-history, I mean the presence of Chinese and Indo-Canadians prominent in BC politics...and crime/gangs). Good judgment and "knowledge of the field" are "required" and all that stuff has to be "handled with care"; I added certain "notables" to the page yesterday that are in need of doing for a long time, but as witnessed by the ongoing "weird" activity at Bindy Johal and Indo-Canadian organized crime it's an area I'm averse to getting much involved with; and re the Chinese, it's rather strange that given the role of the tongs and the history of the opium/heroin trade in Vancouver that's not in the article, but then it's not in any of he sources he uses which avoid so much while conflating and distorting much else (actually I recall one "new history" article which discussed white women being found in opium dens in China, deconstructing it to denounce Victorian values of course).

I've read dozens of those things, and the "tone" is always the same; and egregious historical and geographic gaffes are regularly made in the same breath as very judgement and negative generalizations about evil ol' whiteman. Want to build a POV article? Use only POV sources/passages and fight like hell to get anyone in your way off your back, and despite "his frustration at my frustration" it's HIM that's been conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit me and/or rally others to his cause; especially my "enemies" it seems, with out-of-context nastiness being trumped up here from the distant past to "build his case"; his agenda being to get me out of his way, perpetrate the POV fork he wants so it conforms to his parameters of "ethnicity-by-city", a cause which he went at when I pointed out no otehrs existed in Canada other than the Jews-in-Montreal one and certain very specific others; he created maybe 10 articles all in one day, throwing up quotes and formatting them so they were more than stubs, but they're just placeholders; Chinese in Toronto was an obvious POV fork of Chinatown, Toronto but I changed it to Ontario, because of Markham and other places; same as I changed his "Vancouver-limited" Indo-Canadians title to "in teh Lower Mainland" because of the very prominent Indo-Canadian community in Abbotsford-Mission, just outside the GVRD boundaries, which he thinks somehow is in isolation from Surrey, only 10-15 miles away.....he argued and argued and, to prevent me from changing taht tittle to "in British Columbia" as I'd done with this one, as Indo-Canadian society and history in BC are not limited by region boundaries, and his notions of what "urban" and "rural" mean in BC is taht of a distant person with a greasy spyglass.

The merge discussion on that he stonewalled to the point where even the RfC person he called in couldn't make sense of it, so we have a pair of POV forks caused by him there, and here, and he went at them without even looking at what else in teh way of Canadian content there is; he's on an agenda, and says plainly on his talkpkage, and he doesn't want anyone in his way. He's shown no sign of being respectful or admitting I might know what I'm talking about, instead launches tirades and loud demands about page-cites where they're not even required and claims I'm not providing RS because I don't have the books handy to give page-cites; which you, DocumentError, were perhaps misled by something he said about what I said but did not, as he has so often done in talkpage after talkpage and discussion board after discussion board. Again, I point to RS all the time, he gets anal and demanding and impatient about page-cites, when he knows I'm even farther from British Columbia at present and can't "comply" with his Borg-like demands.

Despite his supposedly soft speech, his actions are aggressive and negative and not productive; he wants a big stick to drive me away....from watching out for my own province's/country's history from misportrayals by well-meaning but uninformed people who've never been there and only just started writing articles about it...apparently scanning for sound-bite type content, and any old bit of trivia or community-bulletin board content..while being completely hostile to the idea that others might know of content that should be on there... and point him to places he could learn about that; instead he comes here, calls in RfC, and alleges indirectly and otherwise that I'm dishonest and 'not to be trusted'. I'm no fool, I see the campaign and know it for what it is, and have seen this kind of thing before, whether from ethno-agendists like him or from political interlopers like on Talk:Adrian Dix, and Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster...and oh yes, Talk:Chinaman and Talk:Chinaman (term) where he'll find others like him ready to come here and denounce me but where they lost their attempts to POVize and censor content; which is his agenda here, plain and simple. Other than that obvious fact, as a review of what he has added and waht he has fought off or denounced or challenged clearly demonstrates, he's exhibiting very obvious WP:OWN behaviour and seems determined to have "sole authorship" and does not want to cooperate with an experienced Wikipedian who's already contributed LOTS in thie particular topic-area....and is tired of being harassed and insulted, and needs his pills and some dinner...sorr this was so long it was only meant to be about RS, but this is not a simplistic matter despite the simplistic arguments and misrepresenations being made about me, adn about the content. Has he gone and read any of t he cites I added to the CCinBC talkpage yet? No, I'll be he's writing up another 100-word essay, with footnotes, just like Bo Yang's juicy quote about such behaviour when you tell someone of thtat background he's wrong; he can't admit he's wrong he'd lose face; he'd rather shame and denounce the person telling him he's wrong, and demand that they be punished for making him feel bad. I need my dinner...and to remember to say away from this hell-hole tomorrow, this procedural war has been going on for weeks, and doesn't look like it's giong to stop. Instead of reading, and ordering books if he's so damned interested in the topic (instead of only reviews of them...maybe he can find some Coles Notes too, to help him out so he doesn't actually have t o buy a book), and LEARNING he's here battling somebody into the ground who is the very person who could teach him a lot....but hey he has a degree and I'm just some angry old white guy with no degree (though I do have eight years of post-sec, just no walking papers), and he's learned to speak softly and ask others to use their big stick. I know a lot about my province's history and care about how it's portrayed a whole lot. To me he's a an "ethno-cultural imperialist" fond of revisionist and revanchist sources. Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Skookum1. I stand duly corrected. That was poor wording on my part. I meant only to reference your note below that page cites for talk page discussions on material unlikely to be challenged are not customary or necessary. DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe's statements on sourcing

@DocumentError: @Skookum1: When I said page cites are needed, I didn't mean that every single thing you say on a talk page has to have cite. What I meant was: If you want to challenge what a source says, if you argue that a source is incorrect, you need to provide a better source to challenge it (with page numbers and text, as access to the source is important), and/or a source that directly contradicts the claims made by the first source. The principle reason why I asked for sources is that I was told the existing sources I was using (such as Paul Yee) were wrong. Example: "which gold rush? Yee's sloppy history shoudl not be put here uncritically, he's wrong; see inine comments; and removing more POV-source-driven use of capital-W "Whites"" and "removing more racist language carried over from POV source (Yee); and more fixes of bad English style/writing" I wanted verification that this is indeed the case. If there is no verification that the sources are flawed and the sources qualify as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia, then I feel they cannot be challenged. I feel that if I cite from a source, the source should not be second-guessed unless evidence comes out from another source showing that it did make a mistake. For example, the historical mistakes in Hmong: History of a People (and the ones carried over to The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down) are documented in later books and this how the community knows it's a flawed source. AFAIK is different from a source occasionally making a minor error in fact (this happens in RSes and I knew this from reviews of Talk:Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China): Example: Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Victoria CBA and the Sino-Japanese War. I was able to check the Wikipedia page to see that the war indeed started years later, so I figured Shibao Guo may have made an error in fact there I had been told that all of the sources I am using are wrong and I should use other ones without being given the exact page/article citations proving the sources I'm using are wrong (Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#POV b.s. reinserted, I see). That is putting an inappropriate burden on me. WP:V is clear on who has the burden of proving content. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comments I don't have time today for all this gabble; re "I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct", he seems to have forgotten @Themightquill:'s advice that while my "tone" is questionable, 9 times out of 10 (or more) I'm right about the materials and information I bring forward; over and over and over again.

Skookum1's reply

Legacypac is a "hostile" who edit-warred and used false and/or misleading edit comments on his POV and censoring manipulations of the Ottawa page, which I delisted because of the stress and because others had come forward who recognized the issues I raised so that Legacypac and others like him in the "terrorism claque" do not have free rein to use such events to advance the "terror agenda". DocumentError echoes what you will hear from editors aplenty, that I work well with others who work well with others. @Floydian:, @Skeezix:, @Carrite:, @CLippert:, @Mindmatrix:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @VolcanoGuy:, and various others can attest to the scale of my contributions; even @GroundZero: and @Resolute:, who have been at times at odds with me, will attest to my knowledge and dedication and that I don't make things up as WMT is constantly impugning about me. Moonriddengirl, you say you were shocked by my tone, but you were a late-comer to the ongoing 'MASS of talkpage and discussion board wall-papering of forumshopping to try to stop me from everything from correcting the name of Asian Indians in Vancouver, including his "war" over that term alleging it was right because some non-Canadian source is so out of touch that they use that instead of "Indo-Canadians". Then he went to war over that, and wanted to merge it to South Asians in Canada, and his "walls of cites" and original research analysis of things he's selectively looked have kiboshed merge discussions and RMs alike. He's right, it started with him being confrontational about the Air India bombing supposedly not being covered, and ordering "us" to do it, just as he demanded "I want an answer immediately" in his latest talkboard attack on me at the OR board, which I consider a rank NPA/AGF alleging that I'm lying. So that, Moonridden girl, is UNCIVIL, as is constantly warring with me on nearly anything I say, including pointing him to resources that, rather than go look for them, or read the other related Wikipedia articles (he POV-forked big-time on the creation of CCinBC, but he has a stated agenda of building a global "ethnicity-by-city" series of titles, and titles that don't fit that model he just doesn't want in his way; despite the existence of Chinatown, Vancouver and other articles already covering "Chinese in Vancouver"; also a term he went to war about, even bringing it to the CANTALK page disputing that it's a global term so "Greater Vancouver" isn't needed; a long-dead issue. It seems that I can't tell him about something I know without him demanding a page-cite because he doesn't believe me; and wants others to take action that he can continue to WP:OWN his stable of articles; he wants me out of his way. But of all Wikipedians, I'd venture, I'm the one most "up" on BC history and geography and as many know, I built a lot of the content and category structure for those areas in BC, and I also made sure that Chinese content was on town/region/gold rush et al. articles; so it's not like I'm trying to oppose Chinese Canadian history, as is the other thing his ongoing attacks on my subtextually assert, but rather trying to see that it gets dealt with fairly; and not written as an ethno-politics bulletin board or tract. His sources are biased and have huge numbers of bad geographic and historical gaffes and "false statements", which is a problem of that particular school of "thought" (soapboxing); he rejects the idea that there are things that are out there that he doesn't know of yet, nor did his oh-so-hoity-toity academic sources. The idea that a bulldozering OWNership artist's battleground behaviour on nearly anything would lead to me having an interaction ban re BC history or geography articles is absurd; he knows little about BC, has never been there, knows none of the rest of the province's historical and social context other than his snippets of cites (he can't possibly have read them ALL, given he posts dozens at a time), and rather than researching and learning, he's waging war. Here's what I say: interaction ban, fine, but to me that means a topic ban for him and he can go to some other country and continue his "ethnicity by city" agenda there; the article is a mess, full of TRIVIA and UNDUE and bad writing and POVism....and because of his warring and procedural games, now including this one though Moonriddengirl started it, I haven't had time to add to the non-WMT content on that article re gold rush history and smalltowns in the Interior and more; it's all the stuff he, and his sources, don't know about and given his behaviour don't want to know about, as it's in the way of the ethno-bias they advance; his instruction creep demand that page-cites be provided - which is an extenuation of the citation guidelines and rule-mongering; that simple book-cites aren't enough for him because I can't be believed is plain and simple AGF and a vulgar NPA not just insinuating that I am a liar, which is a gross insult given my years here and teh begrudging respect I've earned, even from those who don't like my straight-talking style, about my scope of knowledge and of the resources out there. Being treated as he has been doing since day one is what is UNCIVIL, Moonriddengirl, and his behaviour on all titles he's started is plainly OWN and nothing but. That I might see a topic ban on an area of my own province's history I know very well because of the battleground and OWN and POV behaviour of someone in another country working from biased and/or faulty sources is ludicrous; he needs to cool his jets, stop being so frigging demanding and impatient and re things like demanding page-cites, cool it with the anal OCD behaviour. He's creating articles and dart-boarding them with ethno-trivia so rapidly they're pastiches and too many to watch all at once; how he finds the time to write his discussion page diatribes against me I don't know; the impatience of the young, plus their incredulity and hostility towards thsoe who know more than them, or who tell them things they don't want to hear, is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia, and older, well-informed editors like myself should not have to deal with "I don't believe you" and cite-demands and discussion-board warring. Wiki-copping by someone who doesn't even know the material and clearly has no respect or good faith in another, long-established Wikipedian, from the topic-turf he's only so recently invaded, is what is disruptive; not me. Is throwing up his anti-Skookum1 tirades helping improve the article or the encyclopedia? No. why is he warring with me when he hasn't even begun to look at the vast array of sources out there I pointed him to? I looked up his user contributions and it seems he has opted out of the edit summary tools; so I can't see what percentage of his contributions are talkpage contributions vs actual work on articles. I'm betting 60-40 or 70-30, from what I've seen. Here I am, another hour of my day taken up with yet more procedure and yet more walls-of-cite distortions/whining by the very person who's been so difficult and confrontational to deal with, and condescending too; so much wrong with his behaviour I'm AGHAST that he's an admin. his combativeness and ongoing disruptive and hostile and OWN behaviour should go to RFA as I think he should not continue to have admin powers, as he clearly has little good judgement and as one of the authors I cited, who I know personally, re the content commented when I showed him the CCinBC talkpage, "Hmmm. Well, I think I have a copy of Dan's dissertation. What is this guy's beef exactly? He's not exactly coherent..." (he's referring to Dan Marshall's Claiming the Land PhD dissertation which broke new ground in BC historiography (he's a protege of Cole Harris of The Resettlement of British Columbia) which I brought up to oppose some bad content form WMT's "academic but inaccurate" sources about there being only 300 Chinese gold miners at t he start; the first boatload, yes, but hundreds of boats made the trip in the next months; within a month Victoria had gone from 300 people to 30,000, about a thid of them Chinese - according to Marshall; but not according to the badly-written sources that WMT seems as infallible. I'll actually be able to page-cite Marshall, as it sounds like Don (Hauka) is going to email me a digital form of it; I'll consult Dan and see if it's copyrighted or if it's citable online; and what reviews there are about it. Last night I went through the first three pages of BC books on nosracines.ca and linked on Talk:CCinBC books found that a search for "Chinese" will get results; he'll complain I didn't format the links properly, no doubt, even though it's talkpage and not article. the Living Landcapes page of the RBCM has lots more. But he's not reading them or even trying to look, he's writing lengthy talkpage attacks/complaints instead and being .... as frustratingly stubborn as always. "Doesn't work well with others" and has no WP:RESPECT for a person who could be very helpful in his studies, including I've suggested book-translation projects for him, since he's suddenly so very now interested in BC, but instead he attacks me again....and others like you, Moonriddengirl, see only the surface and the result of ongoing and both arrogant and misinformed/biased warring on content and on talkpages. So here's "what", as far as I'm concerned: he should be told to cooperate with others knowledgeable about the topic area he's coopted for his empire-building and treat them with good faith; and not demand page-cites and other OCD crap which is utterly AGF, just as his forum-shopping and discussion board diatribes are implicitly NPA, and NOT CIVIL in the slightest; obstinate and disruptive in "soft speech" is often far more UNCIVIL than plain old "you're a jackass" rudeness; it is uncooperative in the extreme and not the way to write a balanced, informed article; rather the opposite. He should spend time reading more BC history, outside of his narrow-field ethno-history sources, before adding much more to the article, which needs massive revision, as do his other opuses on Indo-Canadians and other ethnicity-articles he's started, "staking out turf" on peoples and places he doesn't have any direct experience of. If he doesn't want to change his aggressive and obstructionary and actually defamatory attitude and actions towards me, and doesn't broaden his view of BC history outside the narrow ethno-bias he's been cultivating, and his particular geo-bias t hat he'd like to have (to fulfill his OWN agenda), then if there's an interaction ban, the very simple way to accomplish that without cutting me off from BC history and society articles is for him to find somewhere else on the planet to go appropriate and pontificate and edit-war about How much otherwise productive time has been taken up by ongoing procedural board-talk since he first showed up on CANTALK making demands and insinuations a few months ago? Way too many. If I could see his edit summary, it would be I'm sure very telling as to where he spends his time when on Wikipedia. his articles need "eyes on", they're random assemblages of found trivia, and credulous rendering of quoted material out of context, and without any effort to represent or understand "the other side of the story" and he makes no effort to listen to advice. NONE AT ALL including Themightyquill's comments about me generally being right despite my tone. If this ANI is going to take up days of people arriving to denounce me for making poor little WMT feel bad (and how do you think I feel, hm?), then despite my efforts and goodwill, if this results in a "bad call" that trashes me while shoring up a (to me) very irresponsible, rude and juvenile-in-attitude/behaviour edit, it may be time for me to leave Wikipedia for the seventh or eighth time; I always get asked back, or find myself "coming back in" because of POV manipulations, often, of native content/vandalism problems. Have a look at the star/badge section of my Userpage re that, just because WMT doesn't want to RESPECT me (as in WP:RESPECT which needs to be rewritten) doesn't mean that others don't respect me so much that they ask me to come back and/or not go away. he wants to drive me away, even get me blocked perhaps; I was pondering pointing to the OR board underway as an ANI myself, on NPA/AGF and other grounds, but internet service here in Cambodia is spotty so I was offline yesterday; and that I am regularly painted as the bad guy, just as MRG has started out with here, makes me shy away from using procedure to deal with problematic behaviour of this kind; and no wonder, given how much of my life, time and blood pressure aggressive attack ANIs have cost me this last few years; how much I could have contributed in the way of content and ongoing edits/maintenance instead of having to deal with obstructionism and ignorance is incalculable.

• I know my stuff, and have been trying to educate him; he's been rude in response, and procedurally and talkpage combative and NPA towards me; and yet it's me that's the attack-point in this ANI. MRG, you don't know the material (all of why I say what I say about him), just as he doesn't know BC history/geography or the full range of sources and reality/facts out there that he doesn't have a clue about; and apparently wants to remain as clueless as his "academic" sources are, even though there's sources aplenty that put the lie to the silly and biassed claims/statements that they so often make/allege.

• I have no more time for this today; how many hours of my life is his nonsense towards me going to take? the young have time to waste, it seems, but the old (I turned 59 two months ago) find time is precious and want to put it to good use; and we all (old folks) find it disturbing that the young are so disespectful...and so ignorant about the past, or what others who are older than them have to say. WP:EXP has various passages but none, as yet, about "wiki-elders" such as myself (another editor I'm working with is 84); just as there is an oingonig discussion about female editors in Wikipedia, there needs to be one about older Wikipediasn and the barriers to them, male or female, which include having to deal with "walls of b.s." procedure/talkpage/guideline warring like WMT is so clearly full-time at doing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, I will attest to your knowledge and dedication, and that I have never believed you would "make something up". However, I would argue that you often do not handle conflict well and are generally better off when left to your own devices. That, alas, is not always possible here. Where you say you work well with others who work well with others, that is really just a fancy way of saying you rarely are opposed by those editors. And, other than the sentence I was mentioned in, I won't even pretend that I read that giant wall of text. Summary style man, not blog style. That said, nothing I say here should be viewed as commentary on this dispute, or on WMT, as I have not paid attention to this dispute at all. In that regard, I must trust Moonriddengirl's assessments. In any case, I wish DocumentError good luck with their offer of attempting to resolve this dispute. Resolute 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The intense irony of "Summary style man, not blog style" is what you shoudl be telling WMT; would you like a list of all the places where his ongoing blather and "walls of cites" have sought to WP:BLUDGEON merge discussions, RMs, and other ANI/OR board "discussions" with yet more "walls of text" even longer than I have been blocked and threatened with bans over. yet here again, pot-kettle-black. And at issue is the history of my own province being overrun by an agenda-ist who doesn't know the history-at-large, is on a POV bias-campaign and looks for POV material in POV sources, and carpet-bombs any discussion, and regularly makes overt implications that I am a liar; he's committing NPA/AGF with each and every one of his "walls of text"; all the while not following the leads I provide for him, instead demanding page cites RIGHT NOW (even though I'd told him my last few days were in life-crisis; others here know I have high blood pressure and that other withdrawals form Wikipedia were because of similar stressful combativeness by POV/OR artists on the Ottawa shootings article, Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster, and the "Kwami War" which I'm sure you remember, as others here must. And if you can't be bothered to read "walls of text" and so don't even read his walls of text either......then whatever I have said you have blithely passed over once again. But yes, while you say nobody disputes me that's not true; and many collaborate with me on various topics and respect my knowledge of hsitory/geography/sources and don't throw up board discussion after talkpage discussion after board discussion after talkpage discussion time and over again, instead of acknowledging that he doesn't know twaddle about what he's posting up POV content and TRIVIA and UNDUE about and might actually learn something from a real live British Columbian. But nope, Skookum1 is the bad guy, once again, for getting frustrated by somebody else's disruptive and obstructionist behaviour.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, my comment here does not reflect on the dispute that brought everyone to ANI because I have not paid attention to it. But you pinged me here in the expectation that I would act entirely in your defence. Instead, I gave my truthful view of both the defence you were asking for (which I agree with and support) and your argument that you work well with others (which I don't necessarily agree with). But in terms of your "intense irony", you know I have suggested in the past that your wall of text debate style is often counterproductive. If you have finally found an opponent as verbose as you, then I hope you at least begin to understand how difficult it is to parse. And if your opponent is that verbose, then I would suggest they need to keep the very same thing in mind - people don't read walls of text. They just become background noise that drowns out salient points. Resolute 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When I ask for page cites, it's not an accusation that the other party is making something up. It's simply to satisfy a demand to verify content.

An example of me asking for page cites: Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#annoyingly POV edit comment is a reference to (this edit which added a pagecite to Berton) and a reversal of this edit which argued that to highlight whites was racist - In diff#639658193 I am using page cites to support my position and I think it's fair to ask the other party to do the same.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can't the particular latest invocation by him of WP:V and he claims that it's not instruction creep to demand page-cites as per that guideline; in fact is is instruction creep, as his position does not appear in that guideline and appears to be an extraplation/combination of its first two paragraphs:

• All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]

• Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.

• "The burden to demonstrate verifiability...is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." is plain and simple and can refer to a book cite without page-cites as we often see around Wikipedia. The next paragraph is in reference only to "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" - yet I have field no quotations, and the only person challenging what I know to on other wikipedia pages, and in cites and sources I point to, is him. Demanding page-cites so demandingly for talkpage discussions is NOT IN THE GUIDELINE.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." it is demanding division citations. For a large book, that means page or, at minimum, chapter citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment because of an edit conflict with Maunus, I lost the place this bit was meant to go into:
  • Since you're researching anything negative about me that you can find - rather like your habit of looking for anything in your ethno-history sources that's negative about European/British-ancestry and only adding that - and are trying to recruit people who might have something to say about me in the hopes you can get me blocked and out of your bulldozing way, why not ask for comments from those that have given me barnstars and other awards. Of cousre, you don't want positive input about me....anything but huh? I've pinged some of them, but can't go around asking for comment myself directly; seems to me I deserve a barnstar for "speaking truth to ignorance" something like the "speaking truth to power" which @Viriditas: gave me in relation to keeping Legacypac and his ilk from the POVism/censoring of the Ottawa shootings article;

• • My position about this ANI is what it has been since my first reply; that it is misplaced and the wrong person being accused of being at fault for the "battlefield" conduct he's been waging against me. His researching others' negative comments about me, some very old, is very clearly a personal attack, and "not fair" - but then neither are his preferences in sources and content, either.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• 'comment to MRG in your exposition you say "his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective" but give your head a shake; verification with page-cites is NOT called for by ANY guideline, and it's not "perspective" I've been providing, but examples of events and articles and resources he needs to read to broaden HIS perspective. The only "perspective" I have is that NPOV is not served by his articles, and that they are effectively POV forks, and badly-written ones, albeit with massive cite-farms and link-farms that he cannot possibly have read; among so much else that he doesn't know about. He's also pushing above for a POV fork split again after that was already shot down by RM/consensus over a month ago; his agenda is "ethnicity-by-city" but frankly he doesn't even understand the boundaries and geography of the city ("Vancouver" meaening in his world the Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver (either or both apply internationally; even Whistler is written of as though it were part of Greater Vancouver which it is expressly not) and dosn't 'get" that Chinese history and society in BC is not defined by the city's boundaries, or that of its formal "metropolitan" area the GVRD/Metro Vancouver; the informal "metropolitan" are includes the Lower Mainland; My "perspective" is frm someone who knows his province's history and geography, and also what else is out there on Wikipedia already, which he ignored when he started hias POV forking and OR thesis-writing.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, in response to your note above that I am a latecomer, this is true. I do not say that WhisperToMe hasn't been a problem; I say if he is that you need to resolve this problem differently, if you are to be involved in resolving it. My efforts to get you to moderate your tone and use proper dispute resolution have unfortunately not succeeded. You indicate that some of the people who have issues with your behavior above are combative or have disagreed with you in the past - so far as I know, you and I have never disagreed, and I am not in the habit of attacking people. Even if he is doing something wrong, it doesn't give you license to attack him, with fresh comments (not stale) like "he's just ill-informed and prejudiced" (from the 6th; diff in my opening note above; emphasis in original). Moreover, it's ineffective. Demonstrably in this case, your tone has become the focal point, and it will impede your efforts to demonstrate why you feel he is a problem.

A topic ban is not reasonable unless there is consensus that what he's doing is inappropriate and, after being advised of this consensus, he refuses to stop. At this point, such consensus doesn't seem possible because of the battlefield behavior.

As a side note, you are perhaps incorrectly remembering what he said at WP:NOR. He didn't say "I want an answer immediately." In full, he said, "Disclaimer: I have been in several disputes with the other editor. I was trying to use WP:Third opinion but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately." It was not directed at you, but disclosing that he had tried and switched methods of WP:DR. He is not demanding an immediate answer of you, but requesting quick feedback on your dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ah, yes, that discussion where he says things about me but didn't notify me, and very wrong things I must add, also; behind my back, and pointedly so, and all of a kind with his many attempts to find others to confront me so he can have a free hand to OWN the article. IMO your interpretation of that line is just enablement, approving of his discussion-board warring ad nauseam. Dispute resolution? - I've been too busy responding to his many attacks and sundry absurdities -and also amassing online resources for him and others to use (hopefully others, because someone with more sophistication and open-mindedness to come along would be just great right about now) which, of course, he's not going to look at because he migth have to admit his biases and POV/biased sources aren't infallible. And re that comment, yes, he's impatient in the extreme, apparently has lots of time; I'm trying to survive in a foreign country and am in ill-health and dire circumstnaces yet here I am, because I care about my province's history and I care very much about people using Wikipedia for soapboxes and POVism of any kind. He wants me t o spend my time to fulfill his to-me-anal demands for page-cites, claiming guidelines say what they do not...and acting like both a propagandist and info-warrior intent not on reality, but with his own assumed authority over what's right adn wrong in Wikipedia and his imperious and very impatient demands that things be found right now. Pages have sat for years with unref and refimprove tags; he wants them two hours later. Rude and impatient and demanding; and mis-stating things I've said, even back to my face on certain talkpage posts which I'm not going to spend yet another hour finding and diffing.

Please shut this down, it can go nowhere constructively and is taking up valuable time (and some of my health and remaining precious time); his demands for page-cites on talkpages and articles alike are "too much" given his deletionist/hostile nature to what his own choice of sources/quotes build as "their case". An interaction ban can only mean one thing: a topic ban for him that thanks him for his contributions to BC and Canadian ethno-content, but suggests he take his "ethnicity-by-city" self-authored series of articles to some other country where he might actually know about the place a little bit before launching into a war with one of its reisdents, denouncing him and impunging he's a liar and waging procedural war against. Enough already; he should learn to work with me, learn to not challenge every damned thing I say and give credit wherre credit is due; 50 years of readings, and now 9 years on Wikipedia,and over 85,000 edits, and respected as a resource "go-to guy" for where sources are for BC, and about BC history in general. I'm not talking from an "original research" personal-testimony angle, but from someone extremely well-read in the field he's only just got his toes wet; he's not respectful and this ongoing war is what is UNCIVIL....IMO he needs a week off to discipline him and bring him to heel, because without that he will feel vindicated as to this kidn of conduct; he's happy to take up other peoples' time with his demands, his impatience is also an expression of that lack of respect for others. The AGF/NPA from him has been ongoing since our first interaction; he escalates it, takes it to forum after forum, and continues to "wall of text" in response to neaerly anything. I'd rather be working on that artidle and others; not having to keep him from succeeding in getting me gone, which by now is his very evident true agenda. If you don't like what a messenger is saying...shoot him...or rather, get someone else to so you can pretend innocence. And never admit you're wrong, that would be tantamount to shame, no? I've seen it all before, here and in Wikipedia and in the news/propaganda forums and blogs out there, including the pretentiously righteous and those who demand rules be followed. "You must comply", quoth Seven of Nine. If he's not putting thsoe sourcers I amassed while all this is going on into the article, but preparing another diatribe against me, actions speak louder than words; he doesn't want to learn, he doesn't want anyone else to edit "his" article....Skookum1 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, he did notify you - he told you at WP:NORN that he did, and he gave you the link: [109]. It was observing that notice on your talkpage through my watchlist that drew me to look in on how the situation was going. I understand that you may have overlooked it, but it's there and it was posted immediately after the NORN discussion was opened. I'm very sorry to hear about your poor health, but I cannot in good conscience withdraw this request. Even the tone of your comment here concerns me, as it seems to view his behavior entirely in a negative (and in one point demonstrably untrue) light. :( It remains WP:BATTLEGROUND. If I felt that you would put aside your obviously strong personal feelings about this user and work out the problem in a collegial manner ("civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation"), I'd be happy to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Skookum1, I’ve defended you in the past, for the same reasons you articulate above - that you are dedicated, and knowledgable about B.C. history and geography. I identify with your pride in the place, and your love for its history. But what I’ve seen over the last two years or so very much seems to be a downward spiral towards anger and battleground mentality. It's a cycle - you work constructively on topics for a while, then find a contentious area, then find an opponent (or they find you), then all hell breaks loose. You have a tendency to fire point blank with both barrels when a shotgun isn’t even necessary. Then you are blocked, or quit. A few months later, the whole cycle repeats. Its bad for the content, its bad for editors caught in the melee, and, as you’ve said above, its bad for your health. And, sadly, it discourages people from working with you on the topics that could benefit from your knowledge. I’ve personally been on the edge several times of suggesting a big cleanup project to work on together, only to discover that you are so deeply embroiled in a talk-page war that I don’t even bother. Take this dispute, for instance. It may well be that I would agree with your position, if I was able to wade through all the interpersonal battling going on and get a handle on it. But I simply can’t. That would take up any bandwidth I have for editing, and then some. So I just don’t bother looking in to the disputes you find yourself in, even if they relate to topics that I have knowledge of, or access to knowledge of.

The collaborative part of this project isn’t just a matter of working well with people you work well with; it’s also about finding common ground with people you don’t. (And if that common ground is really not attainable, seeking consensus for your position from your peers.) No one “wins” with these highly charged and adjective-laden talkpage and noticeboard spats. Except maybe the internet service providers. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it, TE: I'm not the one starting or maintaining these discussions; all arise from his refusal to accept good faith about sources and facts and events that put the lie to, or dispute, the POV sources he's obsessing on; rather than address the sources I come up with, he disputes their validity, misquotes guidelines ("policies" he calls them) and has repeatedly sought to impugn my honesty and discredit what I have to say; I'm not the problem. If more BCers took care for their own province's history pages it would help a lot; I find myself the lone soldier against a tide of POV b.s. and, frankly, bad writing full of TRIVIA and UNDUE on a topic very important, and also highly-charged, in BC history, past and present. As usual, I'm being made a pariah even when I'm not the perp. he has behaved in an AGF and anti-consensus way since his first appearance in Canadian articles-space re the Air India bombing on CANTALK; I'm not dishonest, as you know, and I do know my BC history; trying to inform him of other aspects of Chinese history in BC and sources where he can read up has gotten me only insults and rejections and overweening "do it now or I'll delete it" ultimatums and discussion board after discussion board attacks on me and the sources I'm trying to get him to read and learn from. I really should pay attention to that meme around FB about "never argue with someone committed to misunderstanding you"...though that needs amending to "someone intent on misrepresenting anything you say". How much has he accomplished with his dozenz of incredibly long talkpage/board discussions othdr than to defray any energy I might have to work on the article itself?Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, Skookum1, have it your way. No, I don't "get it" with this dispute, because, as I said above, the way you approach disputes discourages me from getting involved. I was trying to make some more general points about how your editing comes across. If you don't want to talk about the bigger picture, that's your right. But, as you can see below, there are people talking about blocking you, and I wouldn't be surprised, if not this time then the next, people start talking about indef blocks or bans. That's not something I want to see, but I really believe the only way it can be avoided is if you take a step back, and re-evaluate how you deal with opposition on Wikipedia. There will always be someone with whom you disagree, or some suite of articles that has fallen on hard times. There is almost unlimited opportunity for confrontation on this project. That isn't going to change. The Interior (Talk) 05:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently WhisperToMe isn't going to change, either, and his ongoing OR/SYNTH about what he claims WP:V means is only escalating with even more extrapolations about "requirements" that don't exist except in his own assertions/SYNTH claims about WP:V. I've toned down my language per this comment about his latest escalation of his continuing and obstinate attempts to censor even talkpage comments describing issues/events that should be in that article; see also Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion where his "walls of text" are way beyond the pale even beyond anything I've ever done; and yes "sophistry" is a very adequate and correct term to describe his ongoing and repetitive board-warrings and talkpage-bludgeonings; and bro, if other Canadian editors leave me to battle such tomfoolery on my own and see me get heated, that's the time to step in and provide Canadian-input and not see me get further baited and insulted; that would keep things frmo getting as far as they have here; same with that ridiculous campaign in previous ANIs to block me for having successfully RM'd most of the unnecessary and undiscussed moves that applied obsolete and often offensive names to Canada's native peoples; same with applying WP:CSG#Places, where there were a few "hostile closes" by the same admin who blocked me without consensus to do so while she had me blocked. I'm the one trying to be informative and responsible and being subjected to very clear anti-good faith comments and challenges and demands that talkpage discussions be page-cited and apparently need reflist templates. The same kind of hands-off-because-Skookum1 is there re Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster was similarly unproductive. If we leave Canadian history to be commandeered by someone with a very clearly POV agenda/bias about our own history, more's the pity. But blaming me because nobody else will intervene isn't working either; there's a lot of issues with various articles that need dealing with, and someone being obstructionist and disruptive by board-warrning intstead of listening and discussing issues and granting good faith about what's in sources he's never heard of is t he real issue here. Making me the issue is AGF; the content and Wikipedia's NPOV should be the issue. .... and also violating guidelines by board-warring asserting false claims about what guidelines require ("policies" he calls them, which they're not).Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just lost at least a half hour of my life reading that massive wall of text, 90% by Skookum1. First of all, WP:V is policy and is not negotiable. No editor can say that they read the book six or eight years ago and later sold it, and cite it that way without page numbers. And then demand others buy the book. That is unacceptable. Every accusation that Skookum1 makes against other editors can be applied against Skookum1, ten times over. This editor has a lot to offer, but their combative attitude is way out of line. As is their longstanding habit of saying in 5000 words what can be better said in 100 words. It is wearying and disrespectful to other editors. Somehow, it must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you haven't seen all the other discussion board and talkpage rants by WMT huh? Too many to link, and he writes more than I do. The combative attitude has been HIS from the very start, when he started demanding coverage of the Air India disaster on WP:CANTALK and persisted throughout his many talkpage attacks on me and ongoing AGF towards anything I say; the OR board discussion is entirely AGF and rankly NPA, and full of instruction creep extrapolations on e.g. WP:V where the passage about page cites is ONLY about quotes from sources; it does not apply to talkpages; he even hunted out negative comments from others about me from the distant past; it's not ME who needs the cooling-of period; he hasn't done a thing with the mass of cites I came up with while he was expanding his attacks on me on the OR board and elsewhere; actions speak louder than words; and he's not working collaboratively and not treating me with respect. As for your put-down of my account of what I know to be in Morton, that's just more AGF and you should know better; I brought Morton up on the talkpage and when I put a tidbit from it on the article it was not a quote and so that bit from WP:V does not apply. I also don't have a few dozen other books I used to have which are used on various pages; that I didn't page-cite them because they weren't quotes I was using them for is a further point. As for "ill-informed" being supposedly an NPA, that's just more instruction creep, and he clearly is NOT well-informed about BC history; his hostility to non pro-Chinese sources underscores the "prejudiced" views he has about non-Chinese in BC's history, as evinced by his ongoing hostility towards anythign that disputes the rank POV and 'bad facts' in the sources he prefers; he doesn't want to admit to the existence of anything in the way of his agenda and has posted dozens of long talkpage and discussion board "walls of text" which you are apparently unfamiliar with; I'm way too familiar with them.. That's not an NPA, that's a statement of fact.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the wall of text response that helps prove that what I said is true. Are you incapable of being concise? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Time for a wrap-up User:The Interior provided a very insightful summary of the problem. No IBAN is going to solve the underlying problem, only an enforced time out for Skookum1's own health and sanity. Can an Admin rule on this? Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And who are you again? the guy who made false edit comments on the Ottawa shootings articles and conducted a POV censorship campaign there? that guy? Right.......but you are not involved with this article, only have a grudge against me for thwarting your attempts to POVize/censor the Ottawa article and pointing out the details of your suspicious-behaviour false edit comments.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely false accusations (check here) no supporting diffs. Thanks for so quickly confirming the point. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely false denial of facts about you, as per your usual m.o. i.e. your repeated deletions of my summaries/analysis of your edits on the Ottawa talkpage; apparently re-deleted before the archive were created; I have connectivity problems here (as does nearly everybody else here) so haven't had the time to research the talkpage history so as to provide the diffs. Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth; you made such a stink about those summaries of your behaviour there so as to redact/delete them more than once. Maybe you do so much of this kind of thing that you jsut don't remember. I do, all too well.Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Action is needed here post by Moonriddengirl

At this point given the feedback of User:Maunus, User:Resolute, User:The Interior, User:Cullen328, and User:Legacypac, I am concerned about pattern. (Sorry if I've missed anyone; please ping them on my behalf. There's a wall of text up there.) I am not only seeing ongoing but escalating hostility at NORN. User:Skookum1 is continuing to assert that User:WhisperToMe is violating WP:AGF by asking for page numbers to verify claims in spite of feedback from multiple people that this is a common burden we all share. He seems to be continuing to take the request for verification as attacks on his "credibility and honesty".[110] The only claims of personal attacks I'm seeing from WhispertoMe is his request for specific verification, coupled with what seems to be a misunderstanding of what original research is: "am conducting "original research" as if I'm a liar. WHICH I AM *N*O*T*.'"emphasis in original (There's a word of difference between "original research" and "hoax".)

But there is ongoing hostility and incivility from Skookum1:

• "Time for you to take a modesty pill, apologize for being such a %@Q%@% about this business about page-cites "; "Get a grip on your ego and your POV"; " 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• "why don't you get a grip on your ego and backtrack from setting yourself up as Supreme Inquisitor and Executioner and stop being so goddamned arrogant about you "saving an article." "Your behaviour and sophistry just gets deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier" "Intellectual flatulence, sophistry, and rule-happy wiki-copping arrogance and deletionism is all I see from you" 17:21, 10 January 2015
• "If it matters so much to him let him read the book for himself isntead of being such a @#%@#%# about what it says that he just doesn't want to admit belongs in the article" 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For full disclosure: User:Skookum1 contacted me once via email over this issue, and I responded. This is where I offered to request mediation for him, although I emphasized my policy of discussing Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia; this contact was yesterday. I can share the text of my response if there is desire to see it, but can't share his letter without permission. That said, his idea of mediation (which I saw after that correspondence) is concerning to me, as it seems to be non-transparent and one-sided. He tells User:DocumentError: "I'll write you privately to lay out what i see is wrong with teh article, as there's no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll write another "100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong"" 09:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether you've been involved in this discussion before or not, If you could please indicate whether you support an interaction ban or other action, or no action at all, it would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Temp Block: This post is not going to make him like me, but since that ship sailed already, I'll go with blunt honesty. What I see here is a repeat of what I experienced first hand, confirmed by other editors. Skookum does excellent work in geography etc, until he picks an editor as a target and engages in war. This behavior then starts to hurt his health and he gets even more hostile blaming the other editor for his problems. It's not a regular content dispute or POV pushing, it's attitude, so a topic ban will not help and an interaction ban only becomes a burden on his chosen enemy and the Admin who has to enforce. The best solution for both the rest of the editors and Skookum1's own health is an enforced wikibreak. That seemed to help the last time, and hopefully will help him again. I wish him all happiness and good health, which I expect he will find easier on a Thai beach then battling on Wikipedia for a few days. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • Point of incidental information; I'm not in Thailand and haven't been since September; I got out, along with thousands of other people, because of the mounting anti-farang nature of the place and the daily murders and beatings of foreigners and scapegoating of same by the corrupt Thai police; the bloom is off the Thai rose; I'm in Cambodia now and glad of it.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Reply Seems to me, Legacypac, that that recent ANI about you and me ended with a promise to disengage and stay out of each other's way, provided I promise not to "out" you which I never intended to do anyway; you should not be in this discussion as a violation of that agreement and closer's orders; you should be blocked yourself for breaking that promise. You do not belong in this discussion, and have nothing to do with the topic, only nursing hostility towards me and now voicing it despite the ANI forbidding you to do so.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More Skookum Contributions

I haven't seen your reply yet, but your claim that it's one-sided is rubbish; the campaign against me by WMT across dozens of talkpages and board discussions is AGF/NPA from start to finish, and it's funny-ironic that others here slam me for the volume of my posts when his are so much incredibly larger and persistently on-attack-mode when he's not working with the sources I came up with to improve the article while y'all were pontificating and condemning me here. His continuing AGF at the OR board is insulting and persistent; he's not interested in cooperation only in getting me out of his way. As for wanting to lay out the case of what's wrong with the article and what should be in it, there IS no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll just post yet more WP:BLUDGEON sophistries and false claims/demands about his interpretation of guidelines that don't say what he claims they do and don't apply to talkpage (page-cites for mere descriptions of what's in a book/source). It's clear, and yes, him writing "a 100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong and demanding that I read it" is a paraphrase from a book by Bo Yang and it fits him to a 't'; it had come up in discussions concerning the Chinaman articles where similar obfuscatory and obstructive POV behaviour as I am seeing from him was rife; no I don't have the page cite, the quote came from a UofT site reviewing the book, which is no longer online. It's clear you are not capable of being a mediator, my mistake for thinking you were rational and not as biased and judgmental as you have just shown yourself to be.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bringing up my reactions to his ongoing AGF and very concerted and ongoing NPA towards me, which I consider his mass of rants criticizing me to be, as "uncivil" is pot-kettle-black; his whole treatment of me has been uncivil from the very start, over and over and over again, to the point of burying merge discussions and wallpapering his claims and source-incantations in at least 20 places...... his behaviour is uncivil, provocative and negative and is against guidelines but he's being let off the hook here while you vilify me. More proof that ANI is not logical or rational or neutral; you're being an enabler of his behaviour, you should really look at his contributinos in the last six weeks and see how much you're missed of what I've been subjected to; but he has opted out of edit summary stats so we can't look up hwo much talkpaging vs actual article content he's been doing; why he opted out of that is a very good question.Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, I've moved your note, which you placed in the middle of mine. Please don't do this; it makes it confusing for others to follow. I have never concluded that the problem was one-sided, but have invited you to offer evidence otherwise - diffs. The only accusations you've ever made about personal attacks and incivility against him is his asking for specific citations to support your assertions. This is not a personal attack or a failure to assume good faith; this is policy. Readers and other editors must be able to verify for themselves that what you are saying is true; it's not because you lack credibility. It's the same standard we all face. That said, you really don't seem to understand how mediation works on Wikipedia. It does not take place behind closed doors: "The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content." (Wikipedia:Mediation). If you enter mediation through anyone, you will be contributing willingly together with User:WhisperToMe. That's the way it works. Compromising with the other party and working with him is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban AND Topic ban for WMT An interaction ban is not possible unless there is a topic ban for WMT concerning Canadian/BC history; to exclude me from 20-odd articles that are related to the one in question, or from that article which is his WP:OWN, so he'd like, is not viable. There's plenty of the rest of of the world he can take his pet "ethnicity-by-city" series of badly-written articles and busy himself elsewhere; he hasn't worked on that article in the last week though spending huge amounts of time continuing and not relenting in his ongoing AGF and patronizing demands such as "do you own the book" even though I've told him ten times at least that I sold it when I left Canada; efforts to get page-cites from the local histories he doesn't want to look up or admit to being valid re underway; but IMO once I have them t he nature of his ongoing AGF is he will continue to claim I'm making it up and fabricating them; that you tolerate or are blind to his excessive rule-mongering and, yes, sophistry and ongoing AGF towards me yet make me the bad guy here is another remind that ANI is a bearpit of negativity and contrariness and subjective, shallow, vindictive tyranny by people who do not know the material and have axes to grind; and too much power to go with their lack of knowledge or common decency.

• THAT is why I didn't file an ANI against him weeks ago; this place is futile and full of nasties and "bad logic" and you can't call a spade a spade if you're under criticism, but man can people ever amp up the AGF/NPA here with some regularity. He has tried to commandeer control of a very important AND controversial aspect of Canadian history for his own, even though he has no experience of Canadian Wikipedia content and even has challenged long-standing naming/usage conventions. It's not just the CCinBC article that he's BLUDGEONED his talkpage spews on, but several others, and has engaged in procedural warfare and ongoing harassment and criticism without every showing any sign of conciliation and ANY sign of good faith that, gee, goddam, Skookum1 might know what he's talking about and the sources he's mentioning are, duh, things I should really try to get hold of and learn from. Nope, he's recruiting "enemies" of mine to this ANI and continuing his AGF assertions and haughty claims about what he's accomplished on the OR page; yet here the dogpile effect is underway, and someone who's not even supposed to be engaged with me is calling for a block when he is in violation of an ANI governing our mutual conduct. That Cullen would whine about a whole half hour of his time trying to read my post makes me wonder if he should even be commenting, if he's so limited on time and so off-the-cuff hostile to me when WMT has posted far more than me on this page, on the OR board in the current discussion and another a while ago, and on a couple of dozen talkpages; I'm the one being "accosted" as DE puts it for around six weeks with his "walls of text".... a half hour? Lucky you. Of course I'm frustrated and getting irate about, being confronted daily with yet more condescending and patronizing challenges and demands, while the rest of you ignore that completely and come after me instead. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not the problem, I'm his victim and the abusive AGF continues daily while nothing is done with the sources or pointers I have compiled for him while he's been busy attacking me.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I asked repeatedly because I wanted to check whether you had any books whatsoever in your possession which would help give verification to any of the arguments (there were multiple books discussed). If you do not have any books in your possession and there are no alternate ways of accessing them, you cannot cite from any of them and they cannot be used as arguments when trying to decide article content. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sez you, according to your SYNTH of WP:V, which doesn't say that AT ALL. WP:V does not apply to talkpage discussions. I'm telling you about sources that I know have this or that in them, you go on a WAR about page-cites to refuse to acknowledge other sources than your own preferred type of sources - instead of reading up on BC history, starting with all those links I provided while you were here and on the OR board writing up your diatribes and SYNTH claims about WP:V. You are wrong, and in the wrong. Sounds like once I do get someone from back home to find page cites for various sources I've mentioned you will AGF them, claiming that since I don't have the book in my hands I can't be believed/trusted. That's AGF pure and simple and it's also abusing guidelines (which you describe, falsely, as "policies", a recurrent habit of those who love rule-mongering seen very often in such cases). You have apparenetly made no effort to explore the mass of cite-links I provided, the ones from nosracines.ca being all page-cites. But here you are, holding forth that even talkpage discussions are to be censored if you don't like what's being raised as issues and needed content. That you would make this kind of argument at all instead of accepting good faith from someone who has read extensively in BC history and contributed loads of same to Wikipedia and has been trying to point you in the direction of content and sources that the article needs underscores your POVite nature about this topic, and your arrogant presumption that you decide what can even be discussed/raised on talkpage discussions. You are not interested in collaboration, only in censorship.Skookum1 (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough! I just searched the Notice boards to find this supposed sort of IBAN against me. Turns out this behavior is very common and occurs regularly back to 2009 - same complaints by editor after editor and same hostile responses. Between the editors who actually filed ANi's and 3RRs against him, and the many editors who chimed in saying they were attacked too, I could quickly put together a list of maybe 50 editors he has savaged, while crying he is their victim. If there is no temp ban I will start my own ANi about the latest personal attacks against me and it will include a greatest quotes section. The pattern is so clear, its painful. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reply you are in violation of the outcome of the last ANI which you seem to not have been able to find despite your hunt for hostile comments about me; I have plenty of supporters too, who tell me to ignore the b.s. and witchhunting perpetrated like you and those hostile and very often off-guideline arguments against me; you yourself have seen multiple 3RR and other violations; what where you're pointing the finger...it will come back to you and may have other repercussions for you that you should be mindful of.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Honestly Skookum, how do you expect to defend yourself against a charge of consistently being combative with others by being combative with others? I really don't want to support calls for you to be blocked or topic banned or anything along those lines. It would help if you could help out by disengaging voluntarily. If other editors are the problem, that will then be much easier to see. Resolute 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Tell ya what, Resolute, why don't you help me improve the articles in question? see what I've been doing while this witchhunt has been going on....I've been being productive and doing research and improving articles while he's still making false, repetitive claims about what WP:V means; if I had more Canadian editors helping me with important matters on Canadian articles I wouldn't be being backed into a corner or being buried by "walls of b.s." on dozens of talkpages and now, again, in this witchhunt of an ANI. Many more sources and improvements could have been found but for the time this unhelpful and unproductive nonsense is going on; thte behaviour problem that WMT has is going unaddressed and I'm being set up for a block by a hostile interloper with a sketchy record of his own; see below about both what I've been doing and about the NPA/attack "votes" section and what's up with that. I'd really welcome help trying to digest and use all the cites/sources I've amassed, which WMT has ignored and apparently doesn't want to use or even look at. I know (or think) you're an Albertan with not much interest in BC history, but please come across the Rockies, there's much to be done. Quite a few BC editors have long left Wikipedia because of ongoing absurdities and bureaucratic/procedural b.s. so more interest from people who know Canada and don't want to argue about what a given term means based on their exterior perspective and biased readings are asserting. Your help on content rather than criticism of my "behaviour" would be very productive. Clearly none of my critics here have any intention of improving content, only in blocking me. Why? Well, good question, see below again and if you didn't witness the content war at the Ottawa shootings and Saint Jean-sur-Richelieu articles and talkpages, your help would have been good to to have there too. I get along fine with people who aren't confrontational and rule-obsessed like WMT, or (Personal attack removed)... in fact that's the other thing I've been doing lately, guiding an older (84 years) contributor who's doing valuable local-history content; see my UCs.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Voting

This ANi has gone on too long for everyone's good. Decision time.
Propose: Two week block for User:Skookum1 for WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and personal attacks etc. Please limit responses to a line or two, and vote Support or Oppose. Any other discussion/rants/walls of text will be moved to a section after this section to keep the poll on track and easy to follow. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Skookum1. Volcanoguy 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing that requires anybody to be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Both here and over at WP:NORN, there is a consistent pattern of WP:Disruptive lack of WP:Civility, coupled with a dose of WP:IDHT with respect to WP:V and its reasons that may rise to a WP:Competence issue. Couple that with user:Skookum1's threats to take his ball and go home and it seems obvious. With 3 blocks in the last year all for WP:NPA, WP:Disruptive, maybe an indef is more appropriate. Paleking (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as one of the dozens of editors who have clashed with Skookum1 on thousands of talk pages, long overdue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. Civility issues seem apparent (mainly convinced by Moonriddengirl's posts and Skookum's walls of text), so a temp block might help reset the tone with a break. Very tough to gauge the actual situation with the walls of text here to comment on things like an interaction ban, but Skookum's behavior does seem high strung if asking for a page number was an issue for them. I'd say just take a break to take another stab at it later. If issues continue warranting an interaction ban, come back here with very clear examples supporting it so it's easier for uninvolved editors to get a read on it next time around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month block. I'll support lesser sanctions too if the community hasn't the stomach to do what is obviously necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocking. I think Skookum1 was baited and has self-control issues that others exploited. I've asked him to stay away from ANI unless he can control himself in the future, and I think that's the best outcome here. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the fact that Skookum1 may or may not have been baited has anything to do with the proposed block, if he has self-control issues, he needs to keep those issues off of Wikipedia, I was personally blocked once for losing my temper, and since then have made sure I didn't let that happen again. If I can control myself, no reason Skookum1 cannot, regardless of whether he is being "baited" or not (although, by the mass of user issues he's had I don't think it takes much to bait him). The fact that he cannot control himself, especially when being baited may be exactly why he should be blocked, and not an argument for his defense. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a matter of principle, I generally oppose sanctions that are proposed by involved parties. I do hope that Skookum1 takes Viriditas' advice to heart. Blackmane (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Blackmane I'm not an involved party - in spite of his posts to the contrary - just watched him do the same crap elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Struck that portion of my statement, but the rest still stands. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

LP is definitely an involved party; not to the articles under discussion but with a history of edit-warring and hostility towards me and anyone in the way of his POV. He is an involved party for launching this vote call purely out of hostility and not relevant to the issues of the articles in question and/or the board-warring the prompted MRG to launch his ANI in a search for mediation NOT punishment. The rank NPA in LP's comment immediately above is yet more pot-kettle-black behaviour. And re "but Skookum's behavior does seem high strung if asking for a page number was an issue for them" - what's high-strung is WTM's incredibly long OR board insistence that any mention of any source including on a talkpage MUST be page-cited. That's not the case, he is the one who's high strung. So comical that I'm being the one dumped on for "walls of text" when WhisperToMe has done that on 40x talkpages/boards. It's amazing to see people who have had nothing to do with this do a scan of LP's rants about me and vote for a six-month block. Contrary, negative, unproductivee, disruptive, that's all this vote-call has been about; replete with LP removing my comments about things being said and REMOVING MY VOTE and placing it separately; none of you say "boo" to that very anti-guidelines behaviour yet you're ready to vote for a block against me. I'm looking for the edit-war on the Ottawa shootings talkpages re his conduct which he'd deleted a few times and seems to have been done again before that page was archived.

• Oppose Reinserting my vote as Legacypac had moved it out of this section. This vote-call was personally hostile and part of a pattern of harassment and accusation by LP that I see is also the subject of another ANI here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here rises to the level of a block or ban. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment separated from voting area

• • Comment I see another uninvolved-but-personally biased editor has weighed in on this witchhunt; the "thousands of talkpages" is a typical exaggeration and belies the fact that I "won" 80% or more of the talkpages in question, which were reversions to long-standing consensus speedily-moved then virulently fought against reversion with board-warring and false claims about what guidelines say; None of the votes supporting this biased vote-call by someone with an axe-to-grind have anything to do with the article that precipitated this...and WMT's board-warring and false claims about WP:V ad nauseam remained unaddressed as also his obvious POV and attempt to censor/limit talkpage discussions by demanding page-cites for same need disciplining. I see my reply to Legacypac was redacted to a separate section again and that is against guidelines...but then that's par for the course with his own record on articles and on talkpages. ANI draws contrarian and hostile "votes" when in fact this ANI Was started about mediation and this vote-call by a non-admin is out of order; I'm the one working on articles and sources while non-involved hostiles are seeking to have me blocked. Such is Wikipedia, and more's the pity. Nothing constructive will be accomplished by blocking me, that much is clear; and that applies especially to the topics/articles that are at the crux of this matter which none of them have anything to do with.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about the content, its about the conduct. Stop posting comments in the voting section. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop calling votes based only on your hostility towards me and which has nothing to do with the articles/issues and board-warring by WTM that have nothing to do with you. What are you doing archiving and re-arranging this board when there are open ANIs against you on it?Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about conduct. Some of my hostility toward you is because of your conduct and ownerhsip issues of articles and categories related to geographic, topographic, or ethnographic features of British Columbia. You haven't changed, and regardless of whether your content is acceptable, your conduct isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments posted in the voting area

• Oppose for obvious reasons; Legacypac is in violation of the ANI about him and me recently, that's one issue and his agenda here is clear, which has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. While this has been going on and WMT continues HIS disruptive board-warring about his assertions about what is "required" by WP:V, I've been the one actually working on the articles he's wanting me gone from and finding sources to enrich them. I'll link the previous ANI about Legacypac and must raise the question of his purpose here; which is clearly axe-grinding and revenge-mode hostility...and must reconsider my promise made at the end of that ANI. Here's what I've been doing while y'all are dogpiling on me here:

• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Sources for Kelowna's Chinatown
• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#sources in nosracines.ca/ourroots.ca that have search terms for "Chinese"
• Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Living Landscapes and RBCM website results
• improvements and expansion of "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia]
• expansion/improvement of "Chief Hunter Jack" article, which he'd added a page-cite demand for {{nofootnotes}} to, which I substituted {{refimprove}} for, as other than one line that is in all four sources since provided; WP:V does NOT say anything like what he claims it to say; not even close

• because of the ongoing NPA harrassment here, in this mad place of resident contrarians, I have not had time to add to the Indo-Canadians article about Johnder Basran, nor write his article yet, here are sources found while the witchhunt here has been going on:

• Former mayor Johnder Basran dies at age 83, Wendy Fraser, Lillooet News, 6 January 2014
• Obituary at Dignitymemorial.com
• Various other articles and improvements on other topics and some very non-confrontational and collaborative/fruitful discussions on various article talkpages.
• I'm the one actively researching sources and improving articles while continues to board-war over his claims about what WP:V requires, which it does not, continues; unaddressed and out of control. Blocking me when I'm the one actually working on articles and not expounding claiims about guideline-rules that don't exist is not constructive and IMO Legacypac is being deliberately disruptive here. Issues about his username continue to puzzle me, and his own record of disruptive behaviour makes his attack-posts here about me utterly hypocritical; but that's the nature of this place: hostility and hypocrisy. That a busy contributing editor who continues to create and improve articles should be blocked while the person obstructing those improvements is let to run free and go undisciplined is a complete absurdity. @Moonriddengirl: you began this as an attempt to mediate or seek mediation; the result is that people with axes to grind who have nothing to do with the topic needing mediation are seeking to have me blocked for no good reason other than their own animosity towards me. Legacypac's vote-call here is clearly NPA and hostile and not constructive in any way. WMT's claims about WP:V and his insistence that talkpage mentions of sources be page-cited are rubbish yet he's allowed to continue repeating and escalating his campaign to censor even talkpage discussions of t hings "in his way".Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• this is the previous ANI that he is in violation of the terms of the close @Wifione: you were the arbiter there, this is clearly a violation, so I'll now be blunt - I still don't understand why "a real estate developer in British Columbia, Canada....enjoy writing professionally and for fun...will occasionally contribute to articles on topics I actually know about" spends his days being confrontational here on ANI and in writing and POV edit-warring on anti-terrorism articles, and what kind of "professional writing" hes talking about, as he's not being very "professional here" and I have yet to see more than a very few edits on British Columbia articles from him. A [https://www.google.com.kh/search?q=legacypac+-wikipedia&rlz=1C1AVNC_enKH612KH612&oq=legacypac+-wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57.11959j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 google of his username suggests other things that were in fact challenged and questioned when he first appeared on Wikipedia last year; he disavows ever having heard of that organization but he works in American-oriented political articles all the time so that claim seems highly disingenuous, as even I've heard of them as have many other Canadians; whatever, if he doesn't want to respect the outcome of that ANI, neither will I so have raised the question of his motives/agenda here as his hostility towards me is his whole reason for being in this thread. How is his behaviour here contributing to improving the encyclopedia? its not, it's disruptive as he has been so often before on countless other articles as a good long look at his usercontributions will show. I'm the one working on BC history content, which WMT is trying to control/co-opt and which Legacypac has had nothing to do with.Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no IBAN against me. You linked to a 3RR report where you said among other things:

(QUOTE from Skookum1: "2) I apologize to Legacypac and User:Inthefastlane and will tone done my use of adjectives and emotional-response expletives (or acronyms thereof) in any future (unlikely) discussions with them, or when similarly confronted by aggressive/insulting or NPA/AGF posts/comments on my talkpage or in other article talkpages or edit comments. I'm old enough to know better but come from an upbringing where speaking your mind is expected, in whatever terms. I expect and hope that Inthefastlane can do the same, whether to do with making disparaging/insulting comments and maintain wiki-decorum in future.") (end of Quote from Skookum)

Do you want this ANi to drag on for weeks or you want to get on with your life? This kind of rant is not likely to help your case. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I"m ignoring this and have been working on articles and research towards same while you've been here furthering your witchhunt; the problematic behaviour by WTM remains unaddressed while you continue to make AGFs against me as just above re "rant". You moved my vote, TOO: and what are you as someone with open ANIs against you doing re-arranging this page and archiving it. Why don't you get on your with your own life (property development according to your Userpage) instead of warring over terror articles? This vote-call serves no end other than to continue/expand you hostility towards me for thwarting your attempts to censor/POVize the Ottawa shootings article. You have no relation to the BC history items this is about; curious that you are more interested in MidEast politics and anti-terror propaganda themes than in any more than six or so minor edits to BC articles...well, not curious at all, really...I suppose if you did comment on realty-related articles in BC that would be a COI huh? not that rules matter to you as your behaviour here and elsewhere aptly demonstrates. Skookum1 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I simply added a header between your rant and the votes as promised to keep the vote area clean. User:Viriditas given these recent posts (and edits to them), did you want to revisit your vote? Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Your rant" is another AGF/NPA like so much of everythign you do, here and elsewhere; and here you're engaging in vote-swaying and you REMOVED my vote; you are not an admin (god I hope not, you don't deserve it) but are wiki-copping this page, even as you continue to incite a block against me...even though you have nothing to do with the issues/articles this ANI of @Moonriddengirl:s was in a search for mediation/ not revenge/punishment and harassment of me by someone who has his own very questionable history of suspect edits and countless edit wars; Viriditas is right, I should just ignore this "hogwash" of yours and keep writing articles while you keep trying to feed this fire to burn me at the stake. Go lead your own life, by the way.... you must have something going on than wiki-warring to maintain POV on the "terror theme" that 99.98% of all your edits have been about.Skookum1 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A request to ban User:Kiel457 from the reference desks

There is no consensus for any administrative action in this case. Refdesk regulars are however advised to ignore the usual generic sorts of requests made by Kiel457. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kiel457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to formally propose that User:Kiel457 be topic-banned from all Wikipedia reference desks. As was previously noted at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk,[111] this contributor has, over the course of some years, repeatedly started threads asking very specific [112] questions relating to the importation of vehicles from one country to another, on very specific questions regarding modifications of vehicles, and more recently very specific questions relating to the import of consumer goods, - such questions amounting to a significant proportion (around 50%) of the contributors entire editing history.[113] At no point has anything the contributor said explained why he/she wishes to know such specific details, and suggestions that the contributor would be better advised to ask such questions at more specialist forums have been entirely ignored. As has previously been pointed out, [114] many of these questions (i.e. regarding details concerning importation) amount to a request for legal advice, and accordingly would not be an appropriate question even if asked in good faith. And frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why we should assume good faith - or competence - from someone who has ignored repeated requests to stop posting such questions. Since it seems apparent that the contributor will not voluntarily stop abusing the reference desks, and since I see no reason why a specific topic ban won't merely result in this obsessive and irrational behaviour being shifted to another topic, I have to suggest that a topic ban covering all reference desk posts is the best course of action. The reference desks are intended as a means to answer encyclopaedic questions. They are not there as a means to enable obsessives to gratify their bizarre urges to ask ridiculously detailed questions on similar topics over and over again, or to satisfy their craving for attention - which I have to suggest is actually at the root of this irrational behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, the user should be blocked. Any perusal of his edit history shows he's not here to improve the project. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (of sorts). A WP:NOTHERE block is a later option if needed. Miniapolis 23:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not obvious to me that the contributor is asking these questions to satisfy a "craving for attention"; the behaviour pattern is consistent with someone who is trying to learn about business conditions, particularly the import and export of cars, but doesn't have a more appropriate forum than Wikipedia. The suggestion that a specific topic ban might simply result in the editor shifting to another topic seems to me to be speculative: there is a sort of pattern to the questions that are being asked, so it's not obvious that such a shift would take place. I certainly suggest that, if there is to be a ban, it be for a limited time only. RomanSpa (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any action. This editor is different from you. This editor has specialized interests, presumably commercial. Nowhere do we prohibit questions from people with a commercial motivation or people who do not speak English well enough to hold prolonged conversations defending their interest when our desk is open to everyone. Most of these questions are not requests for advice on importing but more specific information. On a handful of occasions he may have bent rules on advice but those are not rules with any established penalty for the person asking, apart from not being answered. Few are within the power of our usual regulars to answer but that is not this editor's fault. A total of 40 edits on the refdesks over two years is not a plague of Biblical proportions. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a commercial interest in importing cars into Poland from the UK, [115] Italy to the U.S., [116] Sweden to Iraqi Kurdistan, [117] and the U.S. to Russia, [118] would be relying on Wikipedia for information - and if they are, we probably shouldn't be providing it anyway, given the disclaimers against legal advice. And in this thread on importing cars into Kazakhstan, Kiel457 writes that "I want to know about how to import and register a vehicle in Kazakhstan for information purposes only. I'm not a Kazakh citizen." AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's annoying when one user seems to misuse RD, seeking an education about the world rather than an answer to a single question. Especially when they keep coming back for more and more, using far more than their fair share of a finite resource. On the other hand, no one is required to reply to them, so where is the cost? If the community agrees with ATG, the problem should naturally solve itself; but we've seen that RD is whatever the group currently present wants it to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no harm in allowing him to continue as the refdesk has for a long time been a free-for-all where much more ridiculous questions are tolerated and even encouraged. If nobody wants to answer his questions, nobody will and he'll stop asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds that the editor is not a net negative. There are other editors who ask questions at the Reference Desk who are tolerated even though they are more disruptive than this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The nature of the questions is odd. It's as if he's writing a book on the subject, one question at a time. The generic answer to all of his questions is to ask the appropriate agencies. If he's not going to be blocked, maybe the best solution is to either box up or delete such questions when they appear, and then the guy might start to get the hint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Baseball Bugs - If the questions are in no way related to this place then Box or remove them as soon as he posts ... then he may get the hint, If he continues just block him for a few days (or indef of he carries on). –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the box or delete solution is that almost every such action ends up in a minor edit war, the problematic question drawing in debate, along with an endless discussion on the talk page of how our policies really aren't policies, and suggestions as to what the OP should have said to make his question acceptable. Of course that is a general problem, not just limited to this case. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If he edit wars he'll no-doubt be taken to EWNB where he'll end up with either being warned or blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's the case that "almost every such action ends up in a minor edit war [...] along with an endless discussion on the talk page" (and indeed this sort of progression often is the case), this suggests at least as much of a problem with the editors furthering the edit war and the endless discussion, for which it seems unfair to punish the original poster. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This user has been persisting in this activity for a very long time now, and has been (IMO) adequately informed that his questions are not appropriate. I agree that the time has come for an official sanction. Tevildo (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, agree with RomanSpa and Wnt. This user causes no real problems, and does not post that frequently. A ban would not especially help the mission or tone of the ref desks, in my opinion. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Beeblebrox. There have been many cases in the past just like this one. The advice has always been: 1. ignore them, and if they don't go away, give them enough rope to swing themseves to 3rr and get blocked, and 2) Refdesk regulars, get yourselves better organised. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page modification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Babcock_Al_Jaber

Dear Sir,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Babcock_Al_Jaber

We are unable to make update page of our company created by one of our ex employee name Mr. Gabriel . we are unable to recollect or recover the user login credentials for required changes of the content displayed.

we kindly request you to help & guide us on the same.

thanking you again and awaiting for the reply.

regards, Giridhar rao System Administrator Debaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.202.14.235 (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You can simply create a new account. Please review the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy before editing. NE Ent 11:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

this was also sent to OTRS. I answered it there, saying the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Thehacktivist

Is adding spaces in random articles without explanation. I pinged him and warned him on his talk page (since deleted by another admin - @Wtmitchell: - as "vandalism" but he didn't block the user) and the user continues doing this. I have reverted 3 instances where in addition to mucking with the spaces, the user altered parameters, or otherwise messed things up. Since one of the pages he mucked with was my talk page, I may be "involved", so can someone else see if he's WP:NOTHERE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not all that weird to align the columns in an infobox. Some people do that as a part of their editing an article. However, when I see new accounts mess with the whitespace in a series of articles, I usually assume that they're making busy work to get autoconfirmed and start editing a controversial page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what NRP said - it's not what the editor is doing, but who is doing it that could be of concern. Carlossuarez - the extra spaces don't effect the rendering of the page, but sometimes make it easier to read the infobox when editing. By "altered parameters", do you mean that they changed the name of the field, or the content? BMK (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The name is a (literally) red flag, though. BMK (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another red flag is adding and deleting the same (non-productive) content seconds later, as he did on Ebenezer Adams. I believe that the software still counts such churning edits in determining autoconfirmed status. BMK (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wtmitchell said At a quick look, the user talk page deletion looks like it was an error on my part., and Thehacktivist has like 20 non-vandalism edits and Carlossuarez46 is ratting him on ANI without even attempting a discussion on their talk page first?? Could ya'll at least let him doing something halfway malicious before introducing them to the WP:CESSPIT? NE Ent 23:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that;s kind of a good point. After all, although they weren't exactly perfect, he's already got more article edits in January than you do. BMK (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Zero0000

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a rapid-fire personal attack assault at User talk:Zero0000. I've reported to AIV, but I'm posting here too to try to get as quick a response as possible. Squinge (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, it's already been sorted. Squinge (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gahmar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gahmar (talk · contribs), aka Satishgahmari (talk · contribs), created Satish Gahmari, an autobiographical article, three times before it was salted. He then created Satish singh gahmari, which was deleted. Now there's Satish Singh Gahmari. I've already warned him about creating these articles. Maybe someone else will have better luck. APK whisper in my ear 08:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For anyone that sees User:Gahmar/sandbox and raises the possibility of him being notable, it's nothing but a copy and paste of Amit Agarwal with Agarwal's name replaced with his own. APK whisper in my ear 09:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello @AgnosticPreachersKid:, I have checked their edits and contributions and I have blocked User:Gahmar for 3 days for continuously making disruptive edits. Let's see what happens after that. I have not taken any action against the second account (for now). If you think these two accounts are related, you may lodge a complaint at WP:SPI. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be nice if he contributed to the encyclopedia instead of using it as a résumé. Let's hope things change once the block expires. APK whisper in my ear 18:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abortion - subject to sanctions- editing by MarieWarren - again

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#Abortion_-_subject_to_sanctions-_editing_by_MarieWarren for a previous incident in December 2014.

I believe that MarieWarren (talk · contribs) in this edit to Abortion Rights (organisation) misrepresents the information to which it refers and is in breach of the standards of behaviour expected of Wikipedia editors, thus in breach of the discretionary sanctions on Abortion.

The editor wrote "The Abortion Rights contains information on how to perform an abortion. Suggested methods listed include: "a simple operation"; "drugs"; and "pushing objects into the uterus e.g. a stick, rubber tubing, wire, coat hangers"." (presumably accidentally omitting "website" or similar after the word "Rights").

The group's web page at http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/methods-of-abortion/ which the editor cites is headed "Methods of abortion" and under "Safe and unsafe abortion", "Unsafe abortion", it says "Unsafe abortion is performed by untrained people using dangerous methods, which often fail, in unsterile conditions." and lists various methods including coathangers etc. The page is describing unsafe methods of abortion which have been used, not suggesting their use.

I think that the edit in question is a POV misrepresentation of the organisation. I have reverted it. PamD 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi PamD. I agree with your analysis but believe requests for sanctions should be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked.--v/r - TP 23:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah: @TParis:, @NeilN: I've already taken the advice I was offered - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarieWarren. What happens now, if she's already been blocked while I was crafting that (slowly, as it was my first venture onto AE)? That's an edit conflict on a grand scale! PamD 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What happens is I remove the report [119] NE Ent 00:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an interesting educational experience filing at AE for the first time, even though it turned out to be unnecessary! PamD 08:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hiitssmarty

This user, along with User:Aakashdeep Gupta, seem to be the same person by their declaration of real world identities on their user page. After deletion of the autographical Aakash Deep Gupta. The user has created Wikipedia:Aakashdeep Gupta. Also, the user has uploaded several images from the net, claiming them as his own. Considering his image copyvios, I suggest all images uploaded by the user be deleted.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are the templates that will allow admins easier access to there accounts Hiitssmarty (talk · contribs) and Aakashdeep Gupta (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 15:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is disturbing is that the user has uploaded various images under a CC by SA licence. I've seen this happen, earlier, with one user on Commons, uploading an image that I had uploaded, but this is indeed disturbing. Apparently, said user also does not seem interested in responding to messages on their talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise - Incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This appears to be an attempt to wage WP:BATTLE in the GamerGate venue, to attack one of the admins who is working hard to enforce policy in a seriously disrupted venue. There is an arbitration case pending where such matters can be discussed, or they can be brought up at WP:AE once a decision is finalize, or at WP:GS/GG until then. Spreading the conflict to additional venues such as AN/I is itself disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Background:

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also known as User:Fut.Perf.) is an administrator who has made over 74,000 edits and created more than 2,600 pages over the past 9 years. He is so well known, and (likely) has the support of so many other users and administrators, that he may be what User:Beeblebrox describes as Unblockable. In any event, it is likely that, by posting an ANI challenging Fut.Prof.'s conduct, I invite attack by editors defending him. We shall see.

Sequence of events:

1. On 1/20/2015, I noticed that the description of sanctions at WP:General sanctions/Gamergate was slightly different from the description at the Administrators' Noticeboard [120], where the community voted to adopt those sanctions. The former said “all pages related to the Gamergate controversy,” and the latter said “page[s] within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed.” I thought it was important, for consistency, that the General sanctions page accurately reflect the community consensus language. So, I made an edit to make this change, with the edit summary "Correct to reflect actual language of measure adopted at Administrator's Noticeboard." [121]
2. Fut.Perf. reverted my edit, with the edit summary "rv, language was perfectly clear and appropriate, no need to replace it with officious-sounding garbage like this."[122])
3. I started a discussion on the talk page, providing a detailed rationale for the edit, and saying I was going to change the article back to reflect the consensus language. [123]
4. I undid Fut.Perf.'s reversion, with the edit description “Rv to actual language of measure. See talk page.” [124]
5. Fut.Perf. posted the following to the talk page discussion: "No. I will turn this back to the clear, simple wording it has had ever since this page was created. Your actions here are nothing but senseless, useless trolling, creating disruption for disruption's sake, and I will block you if you continue. Unless, that is, if you could make a sensible argument that the two wordings are actually substantially different in meaning, which, obviously, they are not." Fut.Perf. then reverted my edit again, with the edit summary "back off or you will be blocked." [125]
6. There were several more posts on the talk page discussion [126], but none of them are relevant to this ANI.
7. The content dispute part of this incident is now effectively moot, as ArbCom will soon be issuing Discretionary Sanctions that will supercede the community's General sanctions.
8. A few hours ago, I posted to Fut.Perf.'s talk page (pursuant to WP:ADMINABUSE, and asked the question “Why did you accuse me of trolling and disruption, and threaten to block me?” I included a breakdown of the issues as I understood them. [127]
9. Fut.Perf. deleted my talk page post, with the edit summary “go away, troll, and stay away.” [128]
10. My actions in this incident have been, to the best of my knowledge, in accord with WP policy and guidelines: no edit warring, no incivility, no personal attacks, no battlefield conduct, no trolling, and no disruptive editing.
11. I am not an involved party in the Gamergate controversy (nor do I have any desire to be.) I have made the posts described here, and a few on user talk pages, related to procedural issues on sanctions and arbitration.

Issues:

1. The matters at issue here concern conduct, not content.
2. Fut.Perf. has accused me of trolling and “creating disruption for disruption's sake” without providing any evidence. Any reasonable person would find such accusations insulting and disparaging.
3. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." [129]
4. Despite being WP:Involved in a content dispute with me (and, hence, having his admin tools out of play), he has threatened to block me.
5. “Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real world threats, such as threats of harm, but also threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats.” (Note that an administrator can not properly use admin tools to block an editor with whom he is in a dispute.) [130]
6. Before I posted this ANI, I attempted to discuss the matter with Fut.Perf. On his user talk page. He responded with “go away, troll, and stay away.” [131]
7. “Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.”[132]
8. In summary, the issues I have with Fut.Perf. are personal attacks, harassment, assumption of bad faith, and conduct incompatible with adminship (breach of basic policies, failure to communicate.)
9. Because Fut.Perf. is an experienced WP editor and administrator, the community should hold him to a high standard.

Requested sanction:

Place Fut.Prof. on civility restriction for one year. He may be blocked for no less than hour, and no more than 24 hours, if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Blocks to be logged. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Freeofreprisal. These are really bad faith edits. Edit summaries aren't anything for Fut.Prof to be proud of either. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lori Greiner article

In the Lori Greiner article, User:Philpallen removed sourced material which said Lori Greiner went to and graduated from Loyola University Chicago, with amongst other citations backing, Crains Chicago had an article on Greiner which said it. User:Philpallen simply deleted it saying "inaccurate" with no proof. Perhaps someone can take a look at this. I've re-inserted the material with citation. Perhaps I'm missing something -- or not. Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that PHIL PALLEN is involved in brand building commercially for Shark Tank and promotes Lori Greiner's books? Cf. http://www.philpallen.com/ . Quoting "I build brands for TV personalities, public figures and entrepreneurs. Many of my clients appear on shows like Shark Tank, The X Factor, Rising Star, Project Runway, The Doctors, and many others." Be that as it may, Crains Business Chicago et al. say Lori Greiner attended and graduated from Loyola University Chicago. The other editor has no proven counter claim as far as I can tell. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra | Assisted by Citation bot r579

I have been served a ban on both edit and talk pages on all sections related to Dawoodi Bohra by EdJohnston I have asked him several times for a clearer explanation of the reasons given as I have not - as alleged - made 2 reverts of the topic Mufaddal Saifuddin, not 'declared a winner' and am not a sock-puppet account but have had no response.

The following diff is an example of my input. I have avoided changing the negative arguments placed in the pieces and concentrated on introducing neutrality through balancing arguments. Without this input the articles in question maintain a single angle that seems to be intent on portrayal of the Dawoodi Bohra in a strictly negative light, even when the references given themselves do not support the argument.

[[133]]

The ban was placed for declaring a winner in a succession issue in the page Mufaddal Saifuddin and across all Dawoodi Bohra related pages. There was no intention to 'declare a winner' - quite apart from the fact that there can be no 'winner' in a succession dispute as there is no form of election. The word used was 'acknowledged' and evidence was given of who was acknowledging him as the leader of the community at present. This seemed relevant since it was his biographical page and was not the page on the succession itself. The controversy over his right to be the successor is separately discussed in another page devoted to that issue. There seems no real reason for the majority of the Mufaddal Saifduddin page to be dominated by references from his detractors.

[[134]]

I have requested for a repeal of the ban and was willing to confine my input to the talk pages in return for doing so but am getting no repsonse. The articles meanwhile remain heavily weighted against both Mufaddal Saifuddin and Dawoodi Bohra.

For example anecdotal reports of 'threats' are included in the Mufaddal Saifuddin article. There is no substantiation, no criminal case has been brought to bear and no convictions of the said allegation. In Dawoodi Bohras meanwhile User Summichum refuses to allow a counter argument to the interpretation of the sajda issue - which is spoken of at length in the article as if it is the only matter of importance to the Dawoodi Bohra. In the talk pages he then goes on to say that this page is not the place to justify or dejustify sajda - which I totally agree is the case, so why is it then left with a negative portrayal only? Either the mention of sajda should not include only the interpretation by non-Bohras as 'worship' or the Bohras own take on the matter should be included.

As far as the ban itself is concerned I was given no prior warning and the duration between what looked like a warning by Summichum and the ban itself was barely a few hours and the articles where the warning was and where the ban came from were not the same.

I did not enter into edit warring - as I manintained the majority of the original texts. I have not fallen foul of the 3RR rule.Noughtnotout (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia policy WP:NOTTRUTH the evidences are provided should be verifiable and reliable irrespective of what is the actual truth. This user had twice made Mufaddal a "Dai" on his page(declaring a winner in a disputed case) , but we know from multiple sources that the post of dai is disputed and both claim to be dai and also hold independent offices of "Dai" hence any one cannot be considered as "Dai", both are claimants unless any one side relinquishes the claim forming a separate sect . And the Sajda issue merely mentions what an influential publication rules about the act of prostration to "Dai" of dawoodi bohra, you yourself can quote an influential publication which is reliable which states that prostration to dawoodi bohra dai is permissible according to WP:NOTTRUTH. Hence the ban is justified as you were warned many times and this was discussed on talk pages.Summichum (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The explanation for the ban which I previously posted on User:Noughtornot's talk page was:

Wikipedia relies on WP:CONSENSUS to find the right answer in difficult situations. Since you've never posted on an article Talk page to ask for support from others, it seems you don't understand our model. You already arrived on Wikipedia knowing the right answer about the Dawoodi Bohra succession, and you didn't want to hear what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the ban was issued under WP:ARBIPA, it needs an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to get it lifted. I can provide assistance if the editor wants to file an appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I recently trimmed some material out of the Mufaddal Saifuddin which appeared to me to violate the BLP policy. Summichum promptly added it back. It is referenced, but is highly negative, and sourced to news articles that, for example, report poll results from "an anonymous group". I'm not sure if further topic bans are required or not, as I haven't looked further into their editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block/community ban for Mr. Lama

Mr. Lama has previously been blocked twice for repeated addition of unreferenced data, but during his second block, he has been using an alternate account to get around that block. If you look at Special:Contributions/Mr. Lama and Special:Contributions/VideoMan, both users have targeted the same pages. However, his sockpuppetry has extended beyond block evasion. Moscoide, PollyWart20, and Giovannigiulio have targeted the same pages as well.

I opened up an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr. Lama that has gone unanswered. So may I suggest a permanent vacation for this chronic sockmaster. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou vandalism and POV

This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with [citation needed], alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

Issues with article

• Vandalism

My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

Referenced test:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".

was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with [citation needed]

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

Earlier text with correct quote

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

was altered by inserting while

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

• Logical fallacy

In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Wikipedia Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Wikipedia's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

• POV

Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition.[31] According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]

Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

For details see here.

References

Issues with request for comment

• Harassment and vandalism

I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

"User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

Soliciting admin support

Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Wikipedia administrator Joy [shallot] contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Daivathar

User:Daivathar created the article "Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple". It was tagged g4 for speedy deletion, and later AfD. Daivathar apparently had removed the speedy tag and the AfD. Daivathar was warned for both of these edits, among others. Most recently Daivathar moved the article into the Topic namespace, where it is now inaccessible. The history can be viewed, but the content of any revision is not viewable. It displays "Bad title" instead. The redirect to the topic space has now been deleted.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple (2nd nomination) is pending, but the article itself is still in topic space. Both regular users and admins seem not to be able to move it back. I have requested help from the Flow team/WMF.
Daivathatar appears to be SPA, having only edited this article and its own userpage. This user's activity seems confusing, as perhaps it is attributable to being new and not wanting to have the article deleted. I would like to assume good faith, but the move to topic namespace is suspicious.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I was able to delete Topic:Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple using Twinkle. As the user blanked the page at 17:23, January 22, 2015 (his last action before he moved it into topic space), perhaps we should leave it at that (G7: one user who requests deletion or blanks the page). We still need an answer to the Flow question though, as this type of inappropriate move into topic-space is bound to recur. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's related threads at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Off topic! and Wikipedia talk:Flow/Developer test page. Good news, an edit filter has been put in place to prevent further moves into topic space. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Prolonged edit war over BLP content

Could we get some uninvolved administrative eyes on Pariah (1998 film), if anyone has the time? There is a long-term edit war going on about the inclusion of sourced-but-strongly-negative BLP information, with Scalhotrod repeatedly inserting it on the basis of it having a source and Shark310 repeatedly removing it on the basis of it being a BLP COATRACK. Discussion on the article's talk page has gone a whole lot of nowhere, and both parties seem to believe that their only option is repeatedly reverting each other.

This article is the latest node in a dispute between these users that's covered a number of articles and discussions:

• Nate Moore (actor) - now redirected to the Pariah article, but previously a stand-alone article which was deleted at AfD and re-directed to Killing of Dave Oren Ward, which was also subsequently deleted (see below). It was then re-created as a redirect to Pariah by Scalhotrod
• Dave Oren Ward - also now redirected to Pariah, but was previously a stand-alone article deleted in another AfD and redirected to Killing of Dave Oren Ward, which was then deleted, second verse same as the first.
• Killing of Dave Oren Ward - now deleted, but was previously an article before being deleted at yet another AfD
• Desert Blue - Another article on which the two editors have warred about including/excluding content related to the death of Dave Oren Ward. Discussion on that talk page also went nowhere. Warring there appears to have stopped when Huon removed the content.
• Pariah (1998 film) - the current location of the edit war.

As someone who was involved in all three AfDs, my personal (obviously involved) feeling is that the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia, both in general and especially in the places where Scalhotrod is now trying to add it, and I am concerned about the single-mindedness with which they seem to be approaching getting the topic into Wikipedia. However, in the immediate term, I am more concerned about how the ongoing edit warring between these two users is destabilizing article after article as they continue to find new fronts for the war. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think a topic ban, and maybe interaction ban for the two editors should do? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by Scalhotrod - If its come to this, then I give up. Obviously Shark wants this bad enough that they are willing to be a Sockmaster, be banned, and then come back to continue to delete any negative mention about Nate Moore and keep at it involving various Admins, I'm done with this. I've gone ahead and reverted the content[135] and I'm taking all related articles off my Watch list. I did not know who Nate Moore was until I responded to a request at the BLPN, nor did I care, but I am sorry that I ever got involved. My apologies to everyone involved. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - For the record, I agree with Fluffernutter that the additions to the most recent articles are inappropriate; I'd say discussing the killing of Ward in Desert Blue was a clear case of coatracking. Huon (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not very experienced in wp guidelines. I did believe that reverting negative BLP content that had so many legitimate concerns was the appropriate thing to do, per all of the policy I've read thus far regarding BLP. Particularly once a consensus had been met not once but three times previous...My understanding was that, according to BLP:REQUESTRESTORE, "... the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." I'm a bit confused - Scalhotrod was protesting that I "didn't have a consensus" when I removed his edits which re-inserted this previously deleted content; yet now that we are here, he's complaining that I "keep at it involving various admins". Not sure what that's about. But in any event, it appears that now that there IS attention being placed via ANI, this matter is perhaps finally resolved.
• I would like to add that, if my good faith edits here were in fact "edit warring", and if my understanding of the "3rr exception for BLP" was erroneous in this case, then I apologize to all concerned. My understanding of everything I read seemed to indicate that "poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" was to be deleted per wikipedia policy, particularly if a previous consensus had been reached to delete the material. In this case, it was my understanding that a consensus had in fact been reached three times already.

Finally, I'd like to say thank you to Fluffernutter and Huon for demonstrating to a newbie that "eventualism" does appear to work. Shark310 07:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks/stalking from IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 180.87.192.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems here just to attack another editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, which is obviously not here to do anything not involving harassment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

<ec>Fluffernutter has blocked them, they're probably using proxies. This is probably the same editor who was attacking Luke at Talk:Pistol, causing me to protect the talkpage and to block a half-dozen proxies/socks on several continents a couple of days ago. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• The 180.87.192 range is worth keeping an eye on/range blocking, as there have been a couple of IPs used from that range (see [136]), but they're all over the place otherwise, and I'm not seeing any other obvious range. By the way, thanks to everyone who has helped out; the fact that someone is doing this is far more amusing to me than anything else, and besides, I'm usually tucked up warm in bed when this all kicks off anyway. Hopefully they'll eventually find something productive to do with their time, for their own sake. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending deleting of Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi since 1 February 2008

Hi, fellow editors/admins, This page should be speedily deleted because it has fail to meet the relevant Wikipedia Notability Policy guideline, citations are self driven not from reliable sources and it seems advertisement of an individual, its deleting in pending since 1 February 2008" -- Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• This Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should save a couple steps to those who will look into this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Not-notability and weakness of sources are not valid reasons for speedy deletion - if you think the article does not satisfy notability or sourcing policy, please take it to WP:AFD for discussion. As for "its deleting in pending since 1 February 2008", it was deleted back then and has since been recreated - to nominate it at AFD now you'd need to start a new discussion, not just add an AFD template linking back to the old one. Squinge (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pallavi Kiran user page improper material

Resolved

User is writing an essay or some kind of material not belonging on a user page. Material was removed and a user warning given some time ago. He persists. I do not want to delete it altogether without somebody else's intervention, not to look like I'm the only one and I'm fixated on him, but this should be looked at. I also considered moving the text to a subpage but that would imply the writings are ok for the encyclopedia, which I don't think they are. Would another admin please take a look and comment/act on it? -- Alexf^(talk) 11:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the page per WP:CSD#U5 and will explain WP:NOTWEBHOST to the user and offer to email the text if needed. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help JohnCD. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil IP

I have been dealing with a rather uncivil IP today (195.89.48.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has been edit warring and refusing to engae in meaningful discussion. His latest input to the project was to leave the message "Cunt" Dr. Blofeld's talk page. This was after an earlier request to remain civil and is not acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've called them out for that specific edit with the level 3 warning template, stating that such comments are not permissible.[137] The IP seems to have gone quiet after that, for the last half-hour. However, any further uncivil comment would be grounds, in my eyes, for a block. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My initial thoughts were the Best known for IP but he's never had a beef with infoboxes and he's never used an IP starting with 195. Blofeld's a grown-up chap who can take the "c" word on the chin, so I'd just shrug it off unless he starts edit warring on Stanley Holloway again. Or, since he's the only IP interested in the article for the last few months, a semi-protect would at least force a discussion without requiring a straight banhammer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have strong suspicions that this is the same individual as 195.89.48.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who has edit warred over IBs on Holloway (and others) before and who has previously been blocked for "harassment, trolling, edit warring". - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User Daniellagreen: Requesting intervention with a problem editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am having difficulties with a highly combative problem editor. Despite repeated attempts to WP:DISENGAGE and encouraging other editors who have had similar problems with her to do so (here), Daniellagreen seems to be unwilling to drop the stick. This is an editor with a history of problematic editing, specifically creating articles and editing existing ones with POV and promotional objectives. A glance at her talk page will reveal extensive discussion of this problem with other highly experienced editors, whose advice and counsel she has repeatedly rejected. She continues to attempt to migrate the discussion from her page to others, despite repeated requests not to. (See her talk page and mine.) And unfortunately there have been some pretty extreme abuses of AGF which I have tried to ignore, but have reached a point where it needs to be addressed. At this stage I am unsure how to proceed, but clearly the editor does not respond well to criticism of any kind. To be clear I am not requesting any specific sanctions here, though I will defer to the community on this. The editor has made positive contributions to the project and I believe is capable of doing so in the future. But this is just getting out of hand and given her response to my request to cease communication, any further response from me is extremely unlikely to be productive. Perhaps a strongly worded warning from an Admin is in order. Again I leave this to the community. I encourage interested editors to peruse her talk page and its history, and feel free to contact some of the other editors who have also been trying, without success, to offer some constructive counseling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: This page is titled Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. What is the specific nature and location of the incident which prompted this discussion? John Carter (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been ongoing but the immediate prompt for this post is here. I also note that Bishonen has made an intervention. Perhaps this will solve the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Bishonen's intervention and am content to let the matter go. Anyone wandering by please feel free to close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayatollah Khamenei's & Son's Net Worth

Please see following edits [138] and [139] as it appears that User:Qizilbash123 (with an indefinite block) is trying to disrupt again this article by edit-waring and making unfounded personal attacks. Thanks for your immediate action. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI to investigate. Bosstopher (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the troll is back. Besides that would be nice to have this article locked down so only registered users can edit it. My 2 cents as always. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with User:RGloucester

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:RGloucester seems to have forgotten to be WP:CIVIL over at XFD, As show by the following diffs he seems to have become inflamed by the fact that people are voting to keep Draft:Cultural Marxism

1

2

3

Can an admin please help calm him down? RetΔrtist (разговор) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not be calmed down. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that yelling and insulting people are going to sway them to your point of view? Please step away for a while. The issue that you're getting worked up about is just not that important.- MrX 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not important, Mr X? How can you say that? Is the poisoning of the encylopaedia not important? Is the abuse of the encylopaedia by soap campaigns not important? Is the flouting of processes and policies by cowboy administrators not important? If people don't listen when I write properly, I will write improperly. I will do what is necessary to make clear the reality of the situation. To be clear, there is an ongoing catastrophe. Editors are circumventing all usual processes to ensure that their soap will prevail. As an example, we have one particular administrator who continually raises his administrator status in content disputes, as if he is some kind of high-ranking general of the encylopaedia, who unilaterally undeleted something deleted by a community AfD without a deletion review, and then engaged in the content dispute that led to its deletion. We have Mr Wales, of course, who disrupted these processes from the beginning, and encouraged the above administrator to act like a cowboy. The above administrator continued with a frivolous AN thread because he doesn't like his actions being questioned, for instance. This is absolutely unacceptable, in every form. It has been unacceptable from day one. I'm not even going to go into why this article was deleted. If people want to contest the deletion, they should file a deletion review. They won't, but they should. Whatever the case, this has been a farce from the start. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be on a one person crusade for some bureaucratic ideal that doesn't exist here. Why wind yourself up so, when it won't make a bit of difference in the end? Let it go. Let someone else worry about the "poisoning of the encyclopedia", and you go work on some other area of the project that can bring you some joy. - MrX 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here for "joy", I'm here to write an encylopaedia. I will not allow this farce to pass. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"I will not allow this farce to pass" .... Doesn't really look like you have much of a choice ....., Why not edit an article you enjoy and just forget all of this? –Davey2010^Talk 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the concept of "enjoyment". I do what is necessary, and only that. I will the stop this farce, I will stop these soap campaigns, I will stop the off-Wikipedia harassment campaigns, I will stop this poisoning of the encylopaedia, this misuse of sources, and this utter contempt for the rigorous intellect of man. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You know you have no actual power to do all of that by yourself - your actions are actually deafening the ears of those who would support you and alienating those who already did. This is self-destructive and less than martyrdom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The time for rationality has passed. If reason was effective, the article would've remained deleted. Mr Wales would not've twice interceded on behalf of off-Wikipedia soap campaigns, ensuring a destruction of the encylopaedia. Misuse of sources would not be tolerated. Cowboy administrators would not be tolerated. Now is the time for irrationality, the favourite tool of a true human. If only the irrational will see, so be it. I trust them. I cannot allow this to pass. I will not allow these people to do what they've done, and get away with it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you are implying that you may become POINTy, am i correct? --RetΔrtist (разговор) 02:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is impossible for someone to do something that they do not agree with, unless they're weak-minded. I'm not weak-minded. I will protect the encylopaedia, as I have been doing for months. Given your certain propensity, I don't suppose that's something you understand. RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the screeds in this section, the MFD, and on their talkpage ("IT MUST REMAIN DELETED. IT WILL."; "Reality is clear, no matter what people say. DELETE."), this editor is either a POV warrior or mentally unstable and needs a timeout from the topic IMHO. — east718 | talk | 03:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a "point of view". If you are willing to ignore the flagrant corruption of Wikipedia processes, policies, and guidelines, it is you who need a "timeout". RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) East, that's not very nice. He's not insulting anyone, he just seems very insistent that deleted revisions can't be undeleted without DR. But we're already having a discussion about whether the past revisions of the article should be available. Demanding another discussion simply to debate the rather mundane undeletion of uncontroversial past contributions that build into the current draft, when they've already been undeleted anyway, seems to me like an overly bureaucratic interpretation of policy, and in the end is something like forum shopping. The discussion is ongoing and unimpeded. Shii (tock) 03:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They are not "uncontroversial past contributions". They are poisonous, which is why they were deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is some poisonous info in there, shouldn't that be a job for oversight? Shii (tock) 03:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a more subtle, but more deadly poison. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're really going to have to be more specific. What exactly are you alleging is going on here? What's the context? What's this "soap campaign" you're referencing? GraniteSand (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with this saga, there is very little I can do. I hardly wish to relive it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude, help me help you. GraniteSand (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User page the may be violating Polemic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On January 20th, I came across the user page of Tolinjr, he had a screed on it that violated polemic, as well as link to a blog he set up specifically to denigrate Wikipedia and it's users. As it violated Polemic , I removed the screed [| here ]. I left a note on his page explaining why this was removed [here ]. He proceeded to replace it with a pointy note in my direction [| here ], which I did not respond to at all. This morning, I received a note from Carrite explaining that I should not have removed the polemic statement from his page, rather I should have nominated it for MFD. Carrite also [| restored the screed ] then placed an [| applology on ] his talk page for having the screed removed to begin with.

I am requesting more eyes on Tolinjr's page and consensus on whether or not polemic statements can be removed. Far as I know, they can be removed and the page in question (user page or not ) does not need to go to MFD. So what's the consensus. By the way, I've advised Carrite that I will not touch the talk page following his revert as well (no sense in stirring more drama  :) ) KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about consensus, but personally I'd say leave it be, and find something more important to worry about - it is an obscure user page that hardly anyone will ever look at, unless people draw attention to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not replace the text of the User Page ... it was replaced by another very senior editor who disagreed with this editor. This is not a truthful account of what occurred. Furthermore, you can find the exact transcript on my Talk page (I have removed it, but still available in 'View History'). I would also ask that you refer to discussions that took place between Kosh and two other, more senior, editors regarding this topic on their Talk pages. Furthermore, please note that this editor has already been disciplined for manipulating editor material (please see his User Page). Final point, how can any thing I say be any more polemic than Wiki-sponsored userboxes such as ...

This user believes that movie stars and celebrities should stick to what they're good at, not become politicians.

User:Secret Saturdays/Palin unfit for presidency--Tolinjr (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such thing as a senior editor :) KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Tolinjr (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote political beliefs. An image of Palin with a line through it is bordering on an attack. Chillum 17:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff is borderline extreme. Is it time for a "purge" of stuff like that? I happen to have a pretty low opinion of Sarah Palin's fitness for the presidency, but I don't "know for a fact" that she's unfit, nor does anyone else. Almost any president you can name has been considered "unfit" by a large number of people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that we should consistently remove any soapboxing from user pages as we see it. We should not be permissive of political soapboxing no matter how unfit Palin is for president. Chillum 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with the proviso that some people use their user pages as only a form of soapboxing for themselves, and if the editor involved is a decent contributor, that can probably be allowed. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a US Flag on my user page. Is that "soapboxing"? I would make a distinction between "positive" and "negative" soapboxing. Like the difference between "I love the UK" vs. "I hate Liechtenstein" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes too far off topic, it might be useful to point out that those two userboxes were not on the user page in question when it was blanked. They are being used by Tolinjr to make a point (paraphrasing: "if these userboxes are OK, why wasn't my user page?"). The answer to this is:

• The user boxes are not "Wiki-sponsored userboxes", they just exist and no one has deleted them.
• The user page is OK. It was not a polemic, it just contained criticism of how Wikipedia works. We've seriously jumped the shark if such criticism of WP, with no references to any specific editors, are "disruptive".
• The userboxes should be MFD'd if you don't like them, rather than removed from every user page you see them on. If I was forced at gunpoint to care, I'd probably vote to nuke the Palin one at least (and I am not a fan), but I probably wouldn't vote because...
• Let's try to make a more concerted effort to worry about stuff that actually matters.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• While I know the user box issue is far to controversial for CSD, any other page that existed only to disparage a politician would be G10'd. The Palin user box serves no other purpose. Chillum 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of things wrong with this case but as Floquenbeam suggests, we have more important things to do. I suggest we close this without doing anything while leaving both KoshVorlon and Tolinjr to reflect on what they have done wrong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Floquenbeam for the helpful clarification. Criticism of Wikipedia could be argued to be an attempt to improve Wikipedia so I agree this can be closed without action. Chillum 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and for the record, I didn't remove the userboxes, only the screed. Thanks Floquenbeam! KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I realize that now, and I apologize to you and Tolinjr for that misunderstanding. Chillum 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:NoSarahPalin.jpg needs to be deleted, not the least of reasons being that it is claimed to be the work of the US government. I very much doubt the US government is in the business of drawing big red diagonal lines through their official works about US politicians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is being discussed at MfD right now: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Secret Saturdays/Palin unfit for presidency. Chillum 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It also omits the "personality rights warning" which exists on the original. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Tolinjr's user boxes. As for the Wikipedia rant, it's nothing unusual. I don't see "User xyz is a jerk" or anything like that there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - The debate wasn't his userboxes. The debate was the body of his user page. When questioned on this, Tolinjr's response was basically "Why is my user page not okay, but these userboxes are okay?" He was just using the two userboxes above as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type rationale for defending his user page, his userboxes in particular weren't questioned. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When an OP brings something up, it can lead to other things. That Palin image has been sitting there for at least 4 years, and should have been zapped immediately. Shame on us at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom in the news

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks like ArbCom's proposed decisions in the "GamerGate" case are getting some media attention (Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate). Which seems appropriate, because perusing it, the proposed sanctions look like pure B.S. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The more you are involved in things that are reported on the news the more you realize that accuracy is not the prime directive of journalists. Chillum 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cwobeel

Can someone protect Steven Emerson and revert Cwobeel's edit in which he uses a Think Progress cited reference (in another more reliable source) to call a person a bigot (Islamophobe). This is being discussed on the talk page and WP:BLPN#Steven Emerson. I have no desire to edit war with users who want to denigrate a living person with sources like "Salon" and "Think Progress". They do not meet the high quality requirements of BLP and I've explained this, but Cwobeel believes it is acceptable because "it is sourced". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete mis-characterization by ChrisGualtieri. Please see related discussions atWP:RS/N#Cambridge_University_Press_and_Washington_Post_on_Islamophobia_in_Steven_Emerson_article and WP:BLP/N#Steven_Emerson for context. ChrisGualtieri has been reverted by NeilN (talk · contribs) [140] and others. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping by ChrisGualtieri. There are already three discussion on this, two at well watched noticeboards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting admin action because of both of your actions and the fact that Cwobeel reinserted a defamatory label on something that was actively being discussed under BLP concerns. I answered a help request and encountered this - so I am requesting admin action to let the good faith discussion run its course. The fact that the material is supposed to be removed during the discussion is what I ask for. If you have any confidence and sense of process then you would have heeded my request in the first place. Considering another editor asked for help and it concerns that material - this is not unusual, but your actions are. Both you and Cwobeel have taken to deliberately reinserting a bigotry label on a living person sourced to a label cited to Think Progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I urge admins looking at this to look at the discussions at various noticeboards. Also, ChrisGualtieri has falsely accused Cwobeel of inserting defamatory material before. [141] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine do as you please - I'm done with BLPs and dealing with either of you. I answered an edit request and I am feeling bullied over what should have been a non-issue. It has not been a pleasant experience. I don't want any part of your battleground behavior and I am disgusted by your hostility and actions. Close this and bother me no more. Neither of you are welcome on my pages and all responses will be unread. Claims of bigotry and criminal wrongdoing should not be edit warred in while they are discussed. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a similar thing I noticed but we already had this same song and dance dealing with members of the anime and manga wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: I'm not clear why you keep claiming that others are using ThinkProgress as a source. In the edit you cite, the cited source in question is the Cambridge Companion to American Islam, not ThinkProgress. I'm concerned that you're not accurately representing the dispute. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can answer that, Inside the book, there is a footnote after the cited sentence which reads "On Steve Emerson, See "meet an islamophobia network 'expert': Steven Emerson" and gives a think progress URL. Since the book gives a think progress website as a "see also" citation, ChrisGualtieri has determined that therefore we should consider Think Progress the source, rather than the Cambridge University Press. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Aye - though MastCell does have a point. It is actually the book which is saying "Islamophobe Steven Emerson", but this is all we get. I think that is pretty weak given that it was widely reported and theorized that the attack had been undertaken by Islamic terrorists. The Oklahoma City bombing cites three books for this simple and verifiable claim. Context is context, but I suppose I overstepped because it is an attribution that certainly had merit at the time. People can make gaffs, but I think the United States Congressional committee which has cited and used his work and Emerson's own statements are certainly more relevant. If you are going to label someone without any reasoning or anything - that is certainly not a proper source for a BLP. It wouldn't last at FA and it shouldn't be reinserted during a discussion on the label - which was not even started by me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a bad judgement call by me to bring it here or even deal with Cwobeel or NeilN. It is because I am far stricter on BLP policies than the average editor that my strictness is unfavorable. I scanned High Beam and found no high quality sources calling Emerson an islamophobe - instead I saw repeated citations as an expert and numerous (as to be expected) coverage of "gaffs" and such. Emerson is a divisive figure, but I do not believe our biography needs to be equally divisive or so embroiled in labels from trivial mentions. Biographies need to be handled with extreme care and must be gotten right - WP:BLP encourages the demand for high quality sources, but identifying and evaluating the source is more difficult. I find it unsuitable to bring up Emerson in tangent and use a Google Book searched string without any depth to fulfill the desire to slap a manner of bigotry on a person. If no other high quality and reputable source does it - we should not either. And that's where I stand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So the Cambridge University Press doesn't produce high quality sources? What on earth would you consider a quality BLP source? Coffeepusher (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking you need to revisit WP:RS, and tell us exactly why Cambridge University Press is not a high quality source for wikipedia using our actual policies. Your rage quit was predictable, and this martyrdom is interesting but your swan song has gone on for four posts now on two different boards, so since you appear to be actively engaging the discussion, you are going to have to show me where Cambridge University Press source violates WP:RS, because right now the WP:RSN and the WP:BLPN has not supported that accusation. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

as the WP:BLPN pointed out WP:WELLKNOWN actually refutes your claim that the word Islamophobe itself is in violation of WP:BLP. We have produced a Cambridge University Press book (which you keep saying is Think Progress), a Washington Post piece (which you called a blog [142] [143] [144] [145]until your claim was taken to WP:RSN after which you quickly backtracked on calling the Washington Post article an unreliable source), each of which document the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of producing Islamophobia. Every source that is brought to you is immediately discredited, in these cases based on misrepresentation and blatantly calling a reliable publication a "blog" just so you could get away with calling the source bad and keeping criticism out of the Steven Emerson article. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem - you look at the publisher and go "yep okay!" and you stop there. Emerson is not covered in any detail at all. According to Google search he is only mentioned once in the body, once for the Think Press citation and once in the index. And the entirety of the content is

"Congressman King cited Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh) and...."

That's it - for the entire book. Not another mention or aspect of Emerson and it has to use a Think Progress source for that twisted gem. I'd be willing to consider it being a suitable source if actually discussed Emerson more than citing Think Progress which was itself cherry-picking. Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress and was cited on a panel consisted of former Ambassador Dore Gold, Steven Emerson, and Jonathan Winer in 2003.[146] Or in mentioned cases in 2001.[147] Official meetings in 2005.[148] Since that "gaff" Emerson has "testified and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of al-Qaeda".[149] He is a recognized expert by the United States Government[150] A single sentence which is so thoroughly disproven by over a decade of continued work and council at the highest levels of the United States Government - discredited? Hardly. The man may make mistakes, but he is not the bigot or disgrace that trivial mention makes. Is that trivial mention in a book really acceptable to call him a bigot - when it cannot even spare a full sentence about his actual credentials? The answer is a resounding no. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

first, you keep making the Think Progress accusation, do you understand what a "see also" footnote actually is? Secondly, our WP:RS policy is based on who the publisher actually is. Third, it is obvious in your last point that you are trying to defend his character from all criticism, because our WP:RS and WP:BLP policies don't have a "merit" system of criticism where if you have enough good press, it should overshadow the bad press. Forth, those positive sources you provided are primary sources, and none of them say "he isn't an Islamophobe." CheersCoffeepusher (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS contains WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." WP:RSOPINION would also apply, but the fact that no high-quality source that discusses Emerson in detail labels him as a bigot is probably a good clue]. You are defensive and entrenching over what is less than a single sentence about Emerson in a whole book. That is the very definition of trivial coverage and certainly should make editors question whether it is proper and accurate to cite it for an accusation of bigotry. Certainly seems to be a WP:BLP issue of proper weight and relevancy. But whatever this rant has gone on long enough. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim for "Islamaphobe" is sourced to TP in the book. That is how books work. Having what one would believe is a reliable source repeat a claim from an unreliable source does not make that claim reliable. In any case, this is also a question of weight. Most people don't get any attention at all unless some people start crying and whining about what they said. A number of editors here seem like their sole purpose is to troll for negative crap to add to a person's BLP without any consideration for weight. The results are BLP's that are little more than bitch-fests against the subject by the perpetually maligned. Coffee, your last sentence is a red herring. You can't prove the negative. Arzel (talk)

you guy's keep making those statements that we are violating every single policy you can think of, what did the uninvolved editors at the WP:BLPN and WP:RSN say?Coffeepusher (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

also, please show us where in wikipedia's policy we determine the reliability of a source through a three step 1. find the source 2. find the "see also" footnote, 3. determine that source. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you @Arzel: - Cwobeel keeps adding trivial mentions just labeling Emerson as a bigot in sources with little to no care. Weight, depth and coverage of sources are all something that needs to be evaluated and the Fear Inc. report is that one which carries the "fomenting Islamophobia" as a valid citation. If you have pages dedicated to Emerson and his work being "Islamophobic" then you use that source, not some trivial mention of "Islamophobe [Steven] Emerson" from a passing mention. Though I cannot tell if one user is being serious or sarcastic with the statement: [Salon and HuffPo are insanely reliable sources in comparison to United States Congress reports. As so many of our problems in BLPs come from Huffington Post, Daily Kos and others. It abuses WP:WELLKNOWN's intention and scope and seems to be a sufficient argument on its face, but is really indefensible in usage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Red herring of enormous proportions. Check the sources and stop making misleading statements. The material about Islamophobia is sourced to books published by reputable houses. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• A red herring misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. Arguably that would be pointing out how you just restored three unsourced articles about Adam Sandler, Susan Sarandon and Nicolas Cage with a single source to IMDb when it was at BLPN. [151][152][153] I assert you do not understand WP:BLP and offer these three terrible edits as evidence. Perhaps AE would be better because self-published user-generated content is not an acceptable or reliable source for a BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are these, in fact, directly relevant to either the specific disputed sources or the article(s) you're complaining about? Or are you, as seems on the surface, throwing whatever mud (or mud-like material) you can get your hands on in hopes it'll stick? Because it really really looks like the latter. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri is exhibiting WP:HARASS behavior, with multiple noticeboard posting, including this gem [154] in which he argues about filing an AE report against me for using IMDb as a source in innocuous list of actors' awards. Really annoying and childish behavior.- Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Calton - I apologize - the reference was pointing out what would be a distraction. I did not intend it to be a continuance. Both of the original issues presented here have been resolved and I've brought a related issue (see above) concerning this editor to Arbitration Enforcement. I should have kept it streamlined and short as both issues were resolved many hours ago by an admin and other editors who addressed it. Again, could this be closed as resolved? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Attacks at David Ross (businessman)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The SPA Andcarr (talk · contribs) has returned to David Ross (businessman) and is once again engaging in some dodgy behaviour. They were reported here a couple of weeks ago. I get the impression that they are an aggrieved shareholder of a business that Ross ran and which has collapsed. They've been blocked before and, btw, I reported myself at COIN but got no takers. I could use some help, please. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've provided a "no personal attacks" warning too, so he now has one from someone independent of the conflict, and I've added a few words of suggestion at his talk page. I got a shouty message at my talk page in response, but at least I tried. Squinge (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems you have been downgraded to a mere Wikiwomble now, which seems like an unintended accolade seeing as Wombles clean up other people's trash and turn it into something useful :-) Squinge (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of when I hacked into my cassette-based Sinclair ZX-81 BASIC interpreter to change "syntax error" to read "stupid error". If nothing else, I really would appreciate it if someone could review what I've been doing at the article and its talk page. I still maintain that I have no COI and, for the record, I've not spoken to the people whom I name in my report since making it. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that Andcarr (talk · contribs) is being rather belligerent on my talk page, and I've had to threaten him with a complaint of harassment to try to get him to stop repeatedly shouting his demands at me. Squinge (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

• We're heading into the realm of legal threats now. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've put a subheading on this bit, so that it might attract the attention of an admin who's perusing the headings. Squinge (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for now, though it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being indef. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP-violating single-purpose account with a grudge, making legal threats and attacking other editors? I can see no possible reason for not going for an indef straight away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is done is done and we can live in hope that they get the message. They were working in tandem with Saskia2309, so things could get interesting. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment, vandalism, and potential sockpuppets

Hello, I'm an artist listed on the Red Bull House of Art wiki page. Recently I noticed the page had been vandalized with handicap jokes and incorrect information. Ringcluder, an unrgistered user, was the person behind the edits. I tried to undo it when I was not registered here, but another user, Corruption Watchchihuahua, changed the revisions back almost immediately. Ringcluder then left a vague threat on my talk page after I registered, which prompted apologies by other users including Corruption. Strangely enough, Corruption then called for Red Bull's page to be deleted. His tone was strangely condescending.

I thought it was weird and decided to note the harassment on the page so other users would be aware that there was more to the story, but the user Truth to the Forth Power began to talk down to me in the same way Ringcluder did. I suspect there is some sockpuppetry going on here. I also think I might know this person in real life, because some accusations have flown around away from this Wikipedia page. This is more than just pranking. Someone is actually playing games with me.

I am requesting assistance in clearing up the matter--is there an alternate account at work here? And is there anything to be done about this harassment? Thank you for your help. I'm new and don't understand Wikipedia very well. Kgpaints (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am concerned about the similarities in names for the users Corruption Watchrottweiler and Corruption Watchchihuahua. The names give off the impression that they are the same user and I don't offhand see anything that clarifies the names at all. In other words, there's nothing to explain why (if it's one person) there are two accounts or why they are working together, how they work, and so on. I'm also slightly concerned about the names in general since they sort of give off the impression that they're here to further a specific viewpoint, something that isn't alleviated by posts like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kgpaints, if you're worried about WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (one person using multiple accounts in violation of guidelines) then you can always request that a sockpuppet investigation (WP:SPI) gets opened. I'm still researching the allegations of harassment, but there is somewhat enough to have a suspicion of sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• So the question is: do you want a SPI opened? I (or someone else) can help you with the process, but we will need to have a more complete list of the accounts that you believe are the sockpuppets and we'll need specific edits to show where you believe that they are the same person. Also for the purposes of the harassment, it would also help if we had links to the specific edits and comments that believe are harassment/trolling. I do see the messages on your talk page and on the AfD, but you kind of give off the impression that this has been going on beyond that and we'd need some links to that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for answering. Okay, that sounds good. All the names I listed above in my original post are the ones I think are sockpuppets of each other. I don't think anyone else is involved. The talk page, Ringcluder's message was the only one I took as harassment, and as far as Corruption is concerned, him suggesting/opening the Red Bull deletion page was a possible example to me of someone getting angry that harassment had not gone their way and they wanted to flounce. As far as Truth to the Fourth Power is concerned, he replies to me towards the top of the deletion talk page. I can't seem to link to his comment there but it's right under the harassment note. Kgpaints (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as actions beyond Wikipedia, the problem is I suspect this vandal is someone I know in real life. Unfortunately, it involves a very delicate situation--I am one of the current Red Bull artists, and I don't want to move forward with anything irl until I get the person I suspect to admit he's the one behind this, or I find exact evidence. Right now, all there is are just some convenient circumstances. Blowing this wide open would result in someone's name getting tossed into the mud, so I can't name any names or link rl things right now. Kgpaints (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it's a case of real world issues and you don't think that you can name the person, you can contact Wikipedia via e-mail about this. I'll try to find the appropriate e-mail for this and post it. I'll get the SPI started for you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• On a side note, I don't see enough to really suspect User:Truth to the Fourth Power as being a sock, but I may possibly mention them in the SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've decided against listing them. I just don't see enough there to really include them. They responded a lot at the AfD, but I don't think that it's enough to where I'd really suspect them as being a sock. I'd need a little more to really give good evidence of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Kgpaints:, I've opened the SPI here. As far as providing information about the off-Wikipedia harassment that you believe shows that this is a specific person editing, you can contact either the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org or the Volunteer Response Team at info-en-vwikimedia.org. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Thank you again for your help. I'll leave this end to the editors. As far as the real life half, it's a delicate situation but I believe this person will out themselves. I'll contact the Arbitration Committee. You've been a great help! Kgpaints (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW this IP 92.20.78.155 (talk · contribs) Just altered Kgpaints post. MarnetteD|Talk 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment and hounding from users user:DMacks, user:VQuakr, user:Leyo, user:Ben and others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have attempted to contribute several molecular models to Wikipedia. They have been continuously called into question by this group of editors, but they refuse to cite sources to back their claims that the images are "unusable" and "inappropriate" up. I have warned all of them that, due to their inability to cite sources, their actions seem based more on their emotional response to the replacement of some of their images with some of mine than based on improving Wikipedia. I have provided at least one very well-known citation here (http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html#) to back the format of my images up as this reference uses the exact same format in the exact same capacity. These users (user:DMacks, user:VQuakr, user:Leyo, user:Ben and others) steadfastly refuse to provide backing for their claims, all the while bashing my cited contributions and requesting their deletion. Are citations not required? And at what point do repeated unsourced edits in the face of warnings constitute vandalism?

Lazord00d (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This was primarily a content dispute having to do with the type of molecular model diagram to be used. However, it has become a conduct dispute due to the filer's persistence, unwillingness to edit collaboratively, and unwillingness to try to reach consensus. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869, a previous complaint about the filer was archived with no action, but the filer doesn't seem willing to accept that as a suggestion to work collaboratively, and has reported their reverts of his edits as vandalism. He has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, and so should know that the use of that label for a content dispute is a blockable personal attack. Recommend a 48-hour block via the boomerang to get his attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

Actually I believe that the "blockable offense" would be if I were to threaten another user with vandalism of that user's page by me. NOT simply reporting someone's edits as vandalism.

Also, these users began hounding me right off the bat when I published these images. My explanations and initial efforts to work with them were met with no response other than uncited "explanations" and edits. You're welcome to block me any time, it won't hurt my feelings.. but I disagree with Robert McClenon for the record. Persistence in defending oneself is hardly an offense (except here). I reported UNCITED reverts, yes, also not an offense. The users in question here have refused to work collaboratively with me, unless you consider bashing my contributions without anything to back their bashing up to be "working collaboratively". Lazord00d (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid to tell, but Lazord00d somehow reminds me of this lady. --Leyo 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'd imagine everyone who has ever disagreed with you fits that cartoon don't they.. after all we both know it's your way.. or no way. Lazord00d (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d - In spite of having edited off-and-on since 2011, you are inexperienced, but you are not aware of your inexperience, and have a sense of your own "rightness", which is why you think that four editors are hounding you, rather than maybe that four editors are the consensus and you are editing against consensus. There may still be time to read the dispute resolution policy and request some form of dispute resolution, either before you are blocked or after you come off block, if you will also read the policy against personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for your (surely very qualified) judgment of me. If these 4 editors ARE the "consensus" then someone had better block me now. How very sad and unfortunate for WP.. but then again whenever you ask anyone in the world what kind of resource Wikipedia is in terms of quality, you always get the same answer. Maybe that lack of quality and reliability as a resource is because the "consensus" is made up of people like these.. hmmm. I'm going with definitely, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the format of chemical pages is by a pre agreed MoS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry), then maybe you should be starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry with a view to expanding the MoS to include 3d structures - then you would get a proper discussion with plenty of editors and a true consensus would be obtained. I would add that if you think that Springer is so correct, then what do you say to http://www.biotopics.co.uk/JmolApplet/paracetamol1.html - where there are no alternating single/double bonds, just C atoms attached to 3 others. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that at work unfortunately, we have java blocked.. I'll check it out later, but most likely the explanation is that there is more than one "correct" way of drawing 3d models. Lazord00d (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we have a manual of style - to gave the reader a consistent theme, otherwise it could confuse those with less knowledge of chemistry. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea about the existence of a MoS here. Attempting to alleviate confusion was my initial goal and has been since I've been a member here.. but I've had to beat back little bands of editor-buddies before so I know it's a common phenomenon here for these little groups to try to control a topic. I get REAL loud when I suspect that is going on and I've got a lot of reasons to think that here. Lazord00d (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You say that you had no ide of the existence of a MoS. If you look at the top of your user talk page there is a welcome message which has been there since April 2012. There are 5 bullet points, one of which is "Manual of Style". If there are others among the useful links provided there which you haven't yet read, now would be a good time to read them. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh... Lazord00d (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I got a notification on this. Not much to add as the edits speak for themselves; please ping me if anyone specifically wants a response or clarification on anything. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So... I mean this blocking you speak of.. is it even a real thing? Because according to you guys I should be blocked several times over.. Oh well the joke continues!!

Lazord00d (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose we should block Lazord00d right way, at this point, he is obviously NOTTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh.. sucks how a narrow-minded clique of control freaks (control over a topic on an iffy at best resource website so yay for them!!) can make it so a person never wants to post anything of value here again. The nice thing for me is that should I be blocked it's absolutely no loss for me, I've contributed much more to wp in the years I've been here than it has to my existence I can say that for sure.. nope, instead it's all loss for wikipedia. I'm sure it's not the first time someone with a lot to offer has been soured to the point of considering wp hopeless. In the world of actual science there is an obligation to cite references for data, but not here. Not one single cited rebuttal to supercede my position has been presented. Yet I'm expected to adjust my contributions (which I and others know are sufficient) based on these claims without anything to back them up, OR be blocked for calling them out as ridiculous bullshit. That's rich, and totally provides an environment conducive to unbiased science. (<= that'd be sarcasm) Lol by all means, block away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be ignorant of why people are proposing to block you, it is because of your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean where I vented frustration by calling out bs? Yep for sure guilty as charged.. Lazord00d (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior on wikipedia is not acceptable under any circumstances. That does not justify anything Weegeerunner (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't say it as justification. It's an admission that I'm a human being.. but you are no doubt without flaw yourself just like all these editors. I get it.. no citation needed lol Lazord00d (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Than own up to it and stop attacking people. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh... Lazord00d (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the usual posters at this board have been very patient for several days, or the usual impatient posters at this board have been somewhere else. (A few other disruptive editors at this board have also been oddly ignored. This board seems to be in an easy-going mood.) If you, User:Lazord00d, really think that Wikipedia is such a deeply corrupt place, why do you continue this non-dialogue? Either take the advice of multiple editors and try to work collaboratively rather than be certain of your own rightness, or just leave Wikipedia alone if it is worthless. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would I question my "rightness" in this case, when I've cited backing for my position? Doesn't really seem proper to do so. On the contrary, it seems like I'm being strong-armed (or an attempt at it anyway lol). I am certain of my "rightness" here because I've researched all this before and cited similar examples presently in use as references. Not to mention why would I make it so easy for wikipedia to be rid of me? This "non-dialog" is far more entertaining.

Lazord00d (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The original poster has now begun discussion at the chemistry MOS talk page about molecular structure diagrams, which appears to mean that he is now trying to be collaborative. I would suggest waiting a few days before hitting him with his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AntanO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The editor User:AntanO seems to be a destructive editor who violates the Right to know of the Wikipedia users. To hide his destructive behavior, he has blocked bots applying some templates like bots|deny=DPL bot. When I observed his contribution on Wikipedia it was clear to me that he is acting against a selected nationalists and always tries to attack them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkwikie (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with denying a bot like that. Do you have any diffs for the poor behaviour that you mention? - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd ask Admins to take action to Lkwikie for WP:PERSONAL against me (refer F**k you) and false accusation - mentioning that I blocked bots and attacked a selected nationalists. --Anton^Talk 11:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The user (Lkwikie) shown good understanding. I'd like to withdraw my counter complain. --Anton^Talk 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New account mimicking my user name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been on Wikipedia as User:Arjayay for over 7 years and 66K edits.
At 06:13 this morning a new user account Arjayaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created - the only difference from my username being the additional a at the end
At 06.13 this new user also created the pages User:Arjayaya and User talk:Arjayaya just putting my user name, without the a, not their user name, with the a, on each page.
At 06.22 they vandalized Thesara Jayawardane as this diff changing the birth date, removing references etc.
The previous edit to Thesara Jayawardane had been by me, which is why I assume they adopted/adapted my name. This has already confused one editor, leading to posts about this vandalism on my talk page.
This new account appears to be an attempt to confuse our accounts, and I request this vandalism only account be blocked and an SPI run to see if a known user is behind it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been impersonated a few times, and a quick way to get rid of them is to go to WP:AIV and report them for "impersonation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - both for the action, and the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't want this user "thanking" me.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He has been very abusive to me in the past and we are subject to a mutual interaction ban. I want no further interaction with this person. [155] Sorry if this seems petty but after the level of personal abuse he has levelled at me, and his wiki-lawyering "plausible deniability" games I find it hard to assume good faith here. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd reported it sooner to when they thanked you I would have blocked them. I'll leave them a message and remind them that 'thanking' is a violation of an IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, double warned. I should have left a note here before I headed over, I'll merge our sections there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly an IBAN violation to thank the person you have an IBAN with. It's "interacting" with them. This user should know better by now. Doc talk 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? After what, about 40 days? MaxBrowne has had numerous edits [156] since the "violation" -- this is yet another violation of the ban on their part; there was no need to reiterate the allegations He has been very abusive to me, personal abuse he has levelled at me, and his wiki-lawyering "plausible deniability" to make a reasonable request IHTS stop with the thanks. NE Ent 13:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MaxBrowne violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MaxBrowne has previously called Ihardlythinkso (IHTS) a narcissist here [157]; he insists on maintaining this link [158] discussing narcissists on the Internet on their talk page [159]. In addition, their reference to the "play the victim" comment. I made on IHTS's talk page [160] indicates he is unnecessarily monitoring that page. NE Ent 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough of the drama already. Go away. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote was added in November of last year.[161] Is this one of those "thought police" investigations? Very spotty evidence of a direct personal attack on any one particular editor, much less any sort of IBAN violation. Doc talk 01:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much insistence on maintaining the link as anger that someone who doesn't contribute content but just hangs out at the drama boards thinks he has a right to unilaterally remove it. It's rude to edit someone's user page. Additionally, he opposed the interaction ban from the beginning and tried to muddy the waters any time I complained about violations. NE Ent, I consider you an enemy. Remember this before you stir up shit. That said, it's not such a big deal so I'll remove the link anyway. I just don't need this bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-planned tag-team edit war and AfD on Aro gTér page

Users User:CFynn, User:Ogress, User:VictoriaGrayson and User:Montanabw discussed bringing an AfD against this version [162] of the Aro gTér page prior to any editing involvement or talk page discussion. Their desire for the AfD was based on personal hostility and religious prejudice:

[163]

"The Aro gTér people are a fringe cult; not exactly one but plastic shaman-y"

“the facial hair alone is enough to make me want to prod-tag the article.”

“I'm certain they won't be able to come up with a single with a single reliable source to substantiate any of their claims.” (The article was extensively footnoted to reliable sources before they removed nearly all of them.)[164]

[165]

“Question: are you up for the Sh--storm if I were to AfD the article?”

[166]

"They are a very tiny cult"

After their content edit war and series of repeated mass deletions which ignored extensive on-going improvements to the article by several editors, ignored attempts to seek consensus or compromise, and refused to work with incremental change, I withdrew from the discussion: [167] [168]

Lily W (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Discussing your tagteaming is not itself tagteaming.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Forum shopping. This is an attempt to do a runaround of the consensus reached on the article talk page, as well as the discussion on the AfD page. Recommend possible boomerang if the forum shopping and unsubstantiated allegations against good faith editors continues. I should point out that there may be possible COI and agenda-based editing at work here, per the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I asked editors with whom I have confidence to help edit the page. You will clearly see from our histories that VictoriaGrayson (talk · contribs) and I have had conflicts - we are certainly not allies - and Montanabw (talk · contribs) has been a reliable editor on many pages but doesn't know me from anyone. On the other hand, I have seen the editors on the page engage in apparent meatpuppetry and COI. And the "shitstorm" in question is currently occurring, is it not? This is forum shopping: there's a pending AfD and, in fact, the editor who brought this claim constantly states there was consensus when there was nothing of the sort. Ogress _smash! 04:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Viriditas and Ogress.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Certain editors should be particularly mindful that facial hair is not an adequate reason for prodding an article and that referring to the article subject as a "cult" may appear to others as prejudice. Controversial removals/additions of sources and such should be discussed on the talk page. —Dark 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The leader / founder of the Aro gTér certainly has a remarkable set of whiskers.[169] I suspect the person who made that comment may have been rather envious. As for being a "cult" ~ As a relatively small religious the group does fit the traditional (non-perjoritive) meaning of the term, but as for the modern (pejorative) sense they don't fit. There have never been unsavoury "cult type" accusations about them - in fact quite a number of people I know have met them and they all remarked on what a nice bunch of people they are (though these people were all very sceptical about the authenticity of the Aro gTér "lineage"). Of course if they were an unsavoury cult you can bet the British press would have written innumerable articles about them - in which case there would be no question of notability. Maybe that's the problem - the Aro gTér are too nice to have gained the notoriety that would have made them notable. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• On the talk page, you agreed that the topic was notable, albeit reluctantly, based on independent sources (including an academic press and journal, independent academic encyclopaedia article, independent national newspaper articles in Europe, UK and USA, a BBC TV program etc,) Quote: “I’m not suggesting that the main topic of the article …is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article.”[170] (06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)) Whether or not most of the other sources are independent is irrelevant to notability. Your opinion on whether the Aro people are a cult or not is irrelevant. Whether you, or people you met, think they are fake or religiously legitimate is irrelevant. Whether you like them or not, is irrelevant. You made no objection to deletion of the page in mass edits and you did not object to the AfD notice. This implies that you ignored the notability standard and appropriate incremental procedure, because you, personally, did not want an article on the Aro gTér on wikipedia. Lily W (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lily W (talk · contribs) has an edit history revolving around this sole web page. Arthur chos (talk · contribs) has been editing this page since 2008 and his edits are focussed on Aro and practices like kum nye they specialise in. Asking other, demonstrably uninvolved, editors to edit the page seemed logical. After I did so, JosephYon (talk · contribs) showed up: he comments above. His edit history is limited solely to Aro and this page. And plastic shaman is a technical term with its own Wikipedia page; the Aro have been accused of this behavior as they are entirely white. Ogress _smash! 10:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with DarkFall. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I googled "plastic shaman" together with "aro gter" and found only one result. It does not accuse Aro of being plastic shamans, but uses them as an authoritative source on Tibetan Buddhism. It appears that no one has accused Aro of being "plastic shamans" besides you.

The reason you give for calling them "plastic shamans" is that they "are entirely white". Is this not plain racism? Do we believe you would have behaved the same way if the leader of the Aro gTer were a Tibetan? Do you want to argue that "being entirely white" is a reason a Buddhist group should not be in Wikipedia? Do you even have any evidence that they are entirely white?

You and others have repeatedly simply invented facts about the group. On the talk page, Montanabw asserted that it is "a one-man show"; VictoriaGrayson replied that it is a "a tiny group of people, probably less than 10". A moment's fact-checking showed these claims were pure invention. In reply, I pointed out that the group's main web page has biographies for 16 Aro Lamas plus 11 other teachers, and the contacts page has groups in 18 locations world-wide. The only reply to that, from Montanabw, was to propose deletion.

All this seems to support Lily W's claim that this was motivated by "personal hostility and religious prejudice". Arthur chos (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang and speedy close: I believe we have a t least one sockpuppet account here, perhaps more, LilyW, ZuluPapa5, and JosephYon may very well be the same user. (Possibly Arthur chos as well, but he appears to be an independent editor) I have this article nominated for deletion, because it appears to be a small, non-notable group headed by a single leader no one else seems to ever have heard of and it has all the hallmarks of a small religious cult group. ALL the sources at issue were either written by the cult founder, attributed to the cult founder's guru, or are from "in-house" web sites. I suspect this ANI filing could be in retaliation for the AfD. I was asked to take a more or less neutral look at this article because I have weighted in on some other articles about fringe groups/cults within Buddhism. (Full disclosure: I'm not a Buddhist, I do have an interest in Human Rights issues surrounding Tibet). We have been looking at this article for over a month, and not only can I not find WP:RS sources for it, neither can the article's supporters, hence my nomination. Also, chitchat on a public user page is not a pre-planned "tagteam." It was open collaboration, discussing a course of action for all to see. Hardly a conspiracy. Sorry about the crack about the bad facial hair. (But seriously, do check out the link, the group really IS a cult with a "plastic shaman" We've deleted articles with more notability than this). Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no "personal hostility and religious prejudice" against the Aro gTér people as the original poster of this incident accuses me (and others of)- I'd just like to see this article conform to Wikipedia standards. The trouble is there is a dearth of independent sources on Aro gTér and everything written about them turns out to be written by them or just a paraphrase of what the group says about itself. Personally I have no big problem with that - so long as the article makes it clear that what the group says about its tradition has no historical basis and the article is not based on independent sources (how could it be when there basically are none). The tradition is simply based on the claims of the founder Ngakpa Chgöyam and his supposed visions or recollections of his past lives - but in that regard they are of course not too different from many other religious groups, large and small, which are also based on the visions and claims of their founder. Yes the group is eccentric (nothing wrong with that), and many other Buddhist groups say they are "fake" (but some of those groups are themselves based on equally improbable beliefs). They may be a "cult" in the traditional sense of the term - but not in the modern pejorative sense of the term. There have never been, for instance, accusations about manipulation of members by this group, and never a hint of financial or sexual scandal (though apparently they conduct some of their ceremonies topless, which is just fine by me). Actually they seem like a nice bunch of very moral and ethical hippies (who abjure drugs and tobacco) who enjoy doing their ceremonies dressed up in colourful robes. And who knows, maybe all this does lead to some sort of enlightenment - it certainly looks far more enjoyable than most other religious trips. The only thing I've been trying to point out on the talk page of the article is that a Wikipedia article should conform to Wikipedia purposes and standards - and that sources written by the founder of the tradition or merely repeat or paraphrase what the founder claims are not independent sources and, for that Lily_W now accuses me of "hostility and religious prejudice". I don't know whether this person even has anything to do with Aro gTer - s/he actually seems to be far too uptight and attached to be associated with that group. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• All parties here need to note that I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of concern is the process that took place, and its motivation. Personal views on whether a topic or source should be considered notable will always vary. That’s why wikipedia has set criteria for deciding notability. Those standards were consistently ignored in favor of personal criteria.

The long list of reliable sources in this talk page contribution [171] was simply ignored when deletion of most of the page, and AfD nomination, took place. The page edit history [172] from 14th January 2015 shows that Wikipedia standards and principles were ignored in line with a predetermined course of action (mass deletions reducing the page with its citations and sources to a stub) and outcome (AfD notice).

Objections to sources, and new discussion of parts of the article that remain deleted, have been posted to the talk page by deletion advocates only after this incident report was filed:

[173]

[174]

[175]

None of these attempts to rectify process in retrospect alter the fact that mass deletions leading to an AfD notice were decided upon and agreed privately, according to personal and religious prejudices and carried through despite input and contrary evidence from other editors. Lily W (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WHOA! Talk about a failure of AGF! I can guarantee that there has been no "private" off-wiki conspiracy from my end, and I have no prejudices in this case, I was asked to swing by as a relatively neutral editor, I'm not even a Buddhist. This user simply fails to understand [{WP:RS]] - you can't cite an organization's founder as a reliable, third-party source. And the deletion of material has nothing to do with the AfD; I would have put it up as an AfD with the included material as well, as it is all non-RS. Montanabw^(talk) 09:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I absoluluty state there has been no private off-wiki conspiracy, this was not a "pre-planned tag-team edit war and AfD". I'd like to also note that meatpuppetry is the subject of a user check that was filed against the filer of this Incident. I asked Montanabw if he'd look at the page because he's an respected editor who does not edit Buddhist articles much and Victoria Grayson specifically because she has edited many Buddhist pages with a hard eye and has not agreed with me (quite vociferously on several occasions). The entire point of bringing outside editors' attention to the article was to get people who were not going to agree with me, who were not of a like mind with me. Also, I'm not Buddhist! I'm not interested in Buddhism for reasons of faith. As I said, I don't think they are a cult, they're on the fringe, but they have been repeatedly described as plastic shamans. I said they were like a fringe cult but were not one. Ogress _smash! 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My phrase 'decided upon and agreed privately' refers to the personal user talk page discussions I linked above, when filing this report. I believe they irrefutably evidence this statement.

Regarding 'plastic shamans': you appear to be the only person to have described them in this way. Lily W (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not add "plastic shamans" to the wikipage, I described them as plastic shamans in a discussion about them. The complaint that they are white people claiming to have spiritual lineages and appointments that came to them is both common and the definition of plastic shamanism: people who claim lineage and empowerments from cultures and religions that aren't theirs without actual evidence of empowerment and lineage. The term is also most common among Native American activists and not in common use outside of those circles; Western Buddhists would call them "frauds" or something. Which they have. I'm not clear how this is some kind of damning evidence. Ogress _smash! 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Where have they? What source do you have for this? Lily W (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe some comments may have been removed from this discussion. eg: VictoriaGrayson: "you should check out the link, though, they really are a cult." Ogress: "we've deleted articles with far more notability than this." I'm not able to find the edit history of this report to show a diff. Lily W (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Enfield Southgate (UK Parliament constituency)

I removed this image from this article because it is a fair use portrait of a person and thus can only be used in the person's article. The person's article has been deleted, so this image is actually an orphaned fair use image and these are normally speedily deleted. A user who saw that the image was used in the linked article, instead of removing it (as they should) and nominating it for Speedy Deletion, created an AfD FfD. After I had removed it from the linked article and nominated it for Speedy, Graemp added it back on the basis that "I was disrupting the AfD", even though the file's use in that article is not acceptable, whether or not it passes the AfD FfD.--The Theosophist (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I listed the file at FfD, not AfD. Link to that discussion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 January 23#File:Gershon Ellenbogen.jpg.

I don't think that we want an edit war on the file information page or in the article. It probably creates less anger if we simply wait for a couple of days until the FFD discussion has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: It has nothing to do with the FfD. The file's use is not acceptable in the article one way or another. Fair use portraits of people are only used in articles about these people and nowhere else. The file must be deemed orphaned. --The Theosophist (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 is absolutely correct with regard to the edit warring of The Theosophist. The correct procedure is to allow the FfD discussion to conclude and the edits of The Theosophist merely confuse that process. Graemp (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

administrator abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ymblanter is yet again being rude, not complying with speedy delete guidelines, not complying with conflict of interest guidelines. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.159.101.131 see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#ymblanter_yet_again_rude_to_users.2C_making_threat_of_range_blocks

ymblanter yet again rude to users, making threat of range blocks[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.159.101.131 proof below ymblanter is doing this again and again please block Ymblanter on global user/admin lock This is because I am trying to tidy up talk pages of my own content and Ymblanter is not engaging in talk and just block, yet again another wikipedia-en admin issue where admin privs not used correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.153.82.215 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.194.166 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI issues, funky redirects

Special:Contributions/No_Funny_Money is a COI SPA trying to promote his employer/company. His original username was blocked as promotional, and his first edits were to create Merchant Service Group LLC, when that was deleted, he created Jason_Thanh_La which is largely a recreation of the prior article. That was nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Thanh_La and during that discussion, the userWP:GAMEed the discussion by moving the article to Draft (via their own talk page?) creating a warren of redirects and confusion. I tried moving it back, but accidentally just moved it within the draft space, but can't fully move it back to the original name while the AFD is going due to the redirect from the user's original move. The user's talk page is now redirecting to Draft talk:Jason Thanh La

First off I could use some help fixing the redirects and whatnot (including my own screwup) , and then I suggest there may be some WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE.

• Move the "draft" article back to article space so the AFD can continue (or be aborted correctly)
• Fix the user's page/talk page that he moved into draft (and then I moved somewhere else in draft)

Due to the issues with the users page, I have not notified them of this discussion, because if I put it on the current redirect page, then it may prevent the move back of their talk page, and if I put it in the draft space, they won't be notified of it anyway. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

JohnCD since you did part of this work (due to my CSD?), perhaps you could look at the other bits I mentioned above? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have returned the user's talk page to the correct place, fixed the redirects, closed the AfD and salted the title to prevent gaming the system by moving the draft back. I will advise the author to use AfC, i.e. submit the draft for review, if s/he wants to return it to the main space. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm sure this must be a violation of something, but I'm not sure what.

I saw this edit: 1, which violated a consensus on the talk page against the section title "Justification based on Islamic religious text" and added more content whilst moving the position of that section, potentially making other changes to it too. This is not the first time sections have been moved about. However, it drastically increases the weight on ISIL's position in the article.

User:Malam kanam 2003 User talk:Malam kanam 2003Special:Contributions/Malam_kanam_2003 You may notice the redirected to a user-page that has no corresponding user and [176] contribution which appears to imply this user is not using their first account, which is one of I think 12 they made to become auto confirmed.

John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction: edit violated the consensus on the talk page, not the previous diff. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry, justifying terrorism, acting like a twit. Looking for two quick bans here on the latest incarnation of this SOCK. [177] Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: you should check the history of the article[178] recently a new sock(Abu ali-shabat thawadi) restored the same removed content. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive/trolling account Cyntiamaspian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cyntiamaspian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making multiple unsourced edits to a variety of articles. I first noticed the user's edits on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita [179]. They seem to be valid edits, but looking at the diffs closely shows the implausible rise of Indonesia's GDP per capita from $3,509 to $80,000 in a year! Because of their subtleness, the disruptive edits stood uncorrected for almost a month. And that's not an isolated incident. The user's talk page is littered with warnings from at least a dozen editors.

Recently, the user's behaviour has turned even stranger, posting a false vandalism warning on User talk:ClueBot Commons [180], impersonating an administrator and adding fake protection templates on User:Adamdaley [181] [182] and User:EoRdE6 [183], which was reverted by Yngvadottir. At least four people asked Cyntiamaspian for explanation, with no reply. See User_talk:Cyntiamaspian#Can you please explain. This is an obvious disruptive user and should be blocked indefinitely. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently, I have proven this editors edits here, here, and here to be false. Can someone take the time to look at this and this for factual accuracy. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The changed the infobox religion from "None" to "Islam" today on a BLP who was raised Atheist, with no sourcing given. I vote for a block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done From your mouth to god's ear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fan site

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Stillhrithik is turning the article Hrithik Roshan into a fan site, despite several warnings at User_talk:Stillhrithik and reverts. He/she continues to makes edits such as this one, where whenever a web site or newspaper calls the actor something, this user adds it as an official name of the person. Check out the full list of other names in the infobox. A scan of the article will show numerous other instances of flowery language and such; it is becoming comical. I am getting tired of reverting. This user is only interested in glorifying the actor that is his namesake. BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Based on their twitter page, this user is either associated with the person in question (or indeed IS the person in question), or is impersonating them in some way. Either way, WP:NOTHERE applies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He already got a last warning and continued editing, so I will block him for WP:NOTHERE. Shii (tock) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677

This isn't a coincidence or a "shared interest"; This is a pattern of abuse, in which Magnolia677 falsely projects an interest in all things New Jersey in order to get his pound of flesh because I demanded in the past that he add sources.

1) I first encountered User:Magnolia677 when he was operating under User:Richard apple and problems arose quickly as he persisted in adding material and refused to add sources. Here, in April 2013 I asked that he "be sure to always add sources for all edits like these" adding notables. He blindly reverted the edits, so I asked again for sources. He was back to his ways days later, so I asked again for the required references. He in turn deleted the request, yet again. By July 2013 he was at it again, so I asked yet one more time and he deleted the message, again. I asked about another unsourced edit and seemed to have set him off.

2) In a rambling reply on my talk page, Magnolia677 comes out and makes the attacks that foreshadow his present abuse: "You do a lot of edits, and you have certainly added to Wikipedia. But you don't own it. When you act so harshly with people who add to articles about New Jersey, you inhibit them from contributing. This is a problem.... And please note... 'Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia'" explicitly citing Wikipedia:Harassment. He knows full well what WP:Harassment means, but thinks that asking for sources is harassment.

3) I wasn't the only one raising the issue, with John from Idegon warning about unsourced edits, edit warring and removing talk page edits and refusing to discuss. The Rambling Man asks here followed by Nightscream asking for sources.

4) On December 11, 2013, Richard apple became Magnolia677, presumably looking to move past his tainted start as a belligerent editor who refuses to add appropriate sources.

5) As Richard apple, he had no apparent strong interest in places in New Jersey, with just 6 in February 2013; 5 in April 2013; 2 in July 2013; and 22 in August 2013. Even as Magnolia677 he had little interest, with 2 in December 2013, 1 in February 2014; 3 in March 2014 and 2 in October 2014. In almost two full years of editing, our "New Jersey expert" has barely achieved 40 edits to places in the state.

6) Then the floodgates open. Starting on November 21, 2014, Mr. Mississippi, the Magnolia Stater, has developed a fascinating -- and disturbing -- interest in the Garden State. I love New Jersey too, but he starts gushing with hundreds upon hundreds of edits a month for the state, quite often, as described above, deliberately provoking confrontations on such trivial matters as flag usage, pushpin maps, the use of page links in pdf references and other argumentative bullshit. Thousands of edits in two months for a place he had never cared about before.

7) Magnolia677 knows what WIkipedia:Harassment is -- "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.... Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." -- and he's doing a damned deliberate job of it.

We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677, who has manufactured himself into an "expert" on the state solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations so that he can run here to ANI to complain about how he has been mistreated. If it was up to me, I'd site ban him immediately per WP:NOTHERE, but a topic ban and interaction ban should be imposed on Magnolia677 at a minimum. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, and perhaps to a few Wikipedia admins, but this kind of shameless abuse of process for the purpose of exacting revenge on another editor has no place on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could an administrator please step in?

I've come to ANI over and over to get some relief from this editor's relentless bullying. I actually have a strong connection to New Jersey, and wanted to have several thousand edits under my belt before I started editing New Jersey, because I learned early that New Jersey belongs to one editor and I wanted to know how to defend my edits.

Now he thinks I've spent the past two months creating articles about New Jersey just to torment him. This is beyond weird.

Last night I added Ridgeway, New Jersey and Brookside, New Jersey. Does anyone here really think this was done "solely for the purpose of maliciously provoking confrontations"?

"We have enough strong and strongminded editors who are knowledgeably and competently creating and expanding articles about New Jersey and we don't need the malevolence of a Magnolia677". Alansohn, I have news for you. I'll edit where I please. You don't own New Jersey and you don't own Wikipedia.

And this "vengeance belongs to the Lord" stuff is creepy. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And dragging my ass here AGAIN, over crap that Magnolia did over 18 months ago, without notifying me, is beyond annoying. An administrator needs to do something. I have better things to do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I will ever understand this New Jersey drama. As far as I can tell, this is a rehash of drama from 2013. None of the diffs are even from the past year, and the complaints about recent activity lack any evidence. The last part of Alansohn's rant reads like textbook WP:OWN. And I really don't understand all this talk of vengeance and malevolence. Since no recent diffs were provided, I looked at New Jersey. No recent edits from Magnolia677. Then I looked at Magnolia677's recent edits. I saw him create sourced articles at Brookside, New Jersey, Ridgeway, New Jersey, and Bunnvale, New Jersey. I see no edit warring, disruption, or malevolence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the last episode of Alansohn vs Magnolia677 just put to rest recently? Unless Alansohn can bring something credible to the table, they're going to need a ban from posting anything to ANI regarding Magnolia677. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For reference:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Removal of two edit summaries

I would suggest an interaction ban, but then they'd just start even more threads on here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• The list goes on, but in addition to the three incidents reported by User:Magnolia677 as listed by NinjaRobotPirate, we need to add the most recent allegation, where Magnolia demands that "ridiculous edit summaries" be removed regarding his most recent incidents of WP:Wikihounding violations. This is the fourth time that Magnolia677 has dragged my ass here to ANI and the fourth time that no action was taken; zero for four. Why? Because I provided the evidence to support the stalking / hounding claim, and as Drmies wrote here, "You have given three examples, and in the two cases where you said "the editor hasn't been here before" you were certainly correct. In other words, I am beginning to see your point." The history above provides some explanation for why Magnolia677 is provoking confrontations and then running in tears to ANI to demand action and exact some sort of creepy revenge. Magnolia677 has never explained why he made these edits to these articles, other than to argue that he'll edit whatever he damn well wants to, regardless of the consequences. The ANI, and the way it has focused on his lengthy history of refusing to comply with Wikipedia policy, seems to have encouraged him to back off from further abuse while the ANI is in progress, a step forward in itself. But it appears that a topic ban is needed here and that an interaction ban on his part is necessary. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this New Jersey drama pretty fascinating too. Even if I moved on and began editing in some other state (I like Michigan), the New Jersey problem wouldn't go away. When I started editing Wikipedia two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles.

In the past few months, as I've made several edits to New Jersey, it's become overwhelmingly apparent that many articles about that state are a reflection of his personal style.

The problem is, some of his personal preferences are extremely "cruft-like", as I tried to address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. And some are just wrong. For example, he has dogmatically insisted that every article I create about New Jersey have the township listed. Look at this nasty edit summary. But, the source he uses [184] is completely unreliable. Please see my comments about this concern to User talk:Famartin regarding "Duck Island" and "Zion, New Jersey".

What is interesting about the posts as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town, which is the primary posting board for New Jersey-related topics, is that not one editor supported him or took his defense.

In fact, one of the only places I've ever seen a New Jersey editor support Alansohn was here, where User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) agreed that the pushpin map I preferred using should be replaced by the kind Alansohn used. Then I noticed that Norton was a discredited editor banned from creating articles about New Jersey. Some support.

Have a look at this intro to the Wiki article about bullying..."bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets." I have experienced many online behaviors which fit this pattern.

When Alansohn started out, you can see here the number of times he was blocked for his poor online behavior. But then they stopped.

The bullying article further states: "Often, bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present that instills the fear of "speaking out" in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the "bully mentality" is effectively challenged in any given group in its early stages, it often becomes an accepted, or supported, norm within the group. Unless action is taken, a "culture of bullying" is often perpetuated within a group for months, years, or longer."

Could it be that Alansohn's behavior towards me has sent a message to other New Jersey editors about what they can expect if they disagree with him?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure an interaction ban wouldn't help. I do feel strongly though, that the New Jersey articles would benefit a lot if different editors with different styles and opinions were free to edit New Jersey articles without fear of Alansohn.

Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

At least User:Magnolia677 has come out of the closet and acknowledges that this is about some sick revenge for my actions two years ago. "When I started editing Wikipedia two years ago, my first truly negative encounter was with Alansohn. Even then, I acknowledged his skill and contributions, but expressed concern about his aggressive online behavior and what seemed his ownership of articles." What exactly did I do two years ago? Ask for sources for material for which Magnolia677 refused to comply. I (and other editors) asked for sources and / or discussion here, here, (acknowledged a source here), here, here, here, here, here, by John from Idegon, here again, here too, here by Nightscream, here, here and here again by Nightscream, more than a dozen pleas to add sources, all of which had been ignored or deleted by Magnolia677. When Magnolia677 finally acknowledged the need to add sources (here), he received thanks from Nightscream and thanks from me. I'm not sure what else could have been done differently other than to have site banned him then after the sixth or seventh ignored request for sources. Sure, chunks of his editing since then is not aimed at deliberate provocation, but his goal here is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS done to him when he first started editing. It is this demented aim to avenge the repeated pleas from multiple editors to add the reliable and verifiable sources that Wikipedia requires that drives Magnolia677 to seek to exact his pound of flesh and run here to ANI on no less than four occasions. Someone who has this demented motivation has no place in Wikipedia. Let's start with a topic ban and interaction ban and proceed from there. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• You just called me "demented" twice. How dare you! I think the biggest fib on Wikipedia is that you're from New Jersey, because big thorny cactus don't grow in the Garden State, and everyone I've ever met from Jersey are decent folks who have respect for others. You're just a big bully who doesn't give a hoot who he insults or what lies he writes about people. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As a proud saguaro, spreading my thorny arms over the swamps of the Meadowlands, I can assure you that I am indeed from New Jersey, no fib. I have the exorbitant property tax bills and the lack of experience pumping my own gas to prove it, and I might even be able to take a selfie with Governor Christie as further evidence. I apologize for duplicating an adjective. However, the lack of any rebuttal or offense at the history of the efforts to convince you that you must add sources -- and your persistent refusal to comply -- is rather telling. Since you had filed this fourth and most recent ANI, you have been a good bit less aggressive in creating confrontations through your edits. User:Magnolia677, while I wish you the best of luck in your journeys across this great country of ours, I still think that these problematic motivations in trying to get back at me for my past efforts to get you to add sources is rather disturbing. I hope that a topic ban and interaction ban can help prevent any more damage from further incidents of stalking and harassment on your part. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think some sort of interaction ban is probably called for, unfortunately, at least on Alanshn's side. I notice, despite a comment in another recent thread involving him that he had changed, Alansohn seems to continue to revel in the use of vulgarity and personal aspersions, and on that basis, if this is the way he acts after changing, I have to think that maybe banning him from interacting with others who find even his "changed" personality toxic is probably a reasonable idea. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, User:Magnolia677 refuses to add sources after a dozen pleas and requests from me and multiple other editors and now comes back to get his revenge, and who is causing the problem here? Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The person who is hyperdramatically escalating the problem, once again, unfortunately, by starting this thread with the wildly obnoxious and prejudicial headline and the allegations, and once again as John of Idgeon said, dragging him in without even bothering to notify him, as he indicated above, is you, yes. There are other ways to resolve this, but, apparently, they may not be melodramatic enough for you? Your frankly disgusting insistence on calling others "demented" (twice in this thread) seems to indicate that you may be basically incapable of dealing with any sort of disagreement in a reasonable way, and on that basis I would have to say that your actions in starting this thread in the overdramatic way you did, even to the point of from the beginning casting unsupported and overdramatic allegations of "vengeance" as the motivation of others, without evidence of course, shows that your conduct and ability to work in a reasonable way with others is itself extremely problematic, and that behavior would seem to merit sanctions, as it is as we both know something you have been advised about repeatedly, apparently without any results. Other more reasonable and less self-dramahtizing editors can probably reasonably deal with any more minor problems without your involvement, or your rather obvious tendency to escalate them. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

I think some sort of sanctions are clearly called for here. Personally, I think the person most in need of sanctions in this instance is probably Alansohn himself, as indicated by my comments above, but I acknowledge that this is just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The person who created the thread was User:Magnolia677, who was complaining about edit summaries. At some point, this section was turned from a subsection into a freestanding section of its own, and Magnolia677's complaints about claims of Wikihounding on his part were removed. I have provided evidence, as requested, of Wikihounding -- as confirmed by Drmies -- and Magnolia677 describes himself above that he came back to editing New Jersey articles because he was bothered by his bad experiences the first time, when he was adding content without sources. Magnolia677 has started four separate threads here about my edits, and even when he was refusing to add sources I started none. I've provided dozens of diffs to support the claims I've made and the best Magnolia677 can do is complain about a duplicate adjective and insist that I'm not really from New Jersey. So you want to take action on mere "personal opinion"? Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia677 and his latest edit war

User:Magnolia677 seemed to be avoiding confrontations while this discussion was ongoing, but he is back to his usual games.

1) In several venues, Magnolia677 has edit warred about a note included at the top of the Notables section in hundreds of articles. After he had initiated several previous edit wars on this topic, he started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. He raised his points, I raised mine. With no consensus supporting him at the centralized discussion, he started another discussion at Talk:Basking Ridge, New Jersey (here) and removed the heading with the edit summary per talk page discussion, though there had been no discussion and no consensus for removal. After responding at the talk page and reinserting the heading as part of an expansive edit of the article, he removed it again without any discussion, with the edit summary Please wait for consensus on talk page before adding this. After I reinserted the heading with an explanation, he blindly reverted it, this time saying this editor created this inaccurate heading without consensus, and has received no consensus supporting it, followed by some more forum shopping.

2) WP:USCITIES is a guideline -- it is *NOT* policy -- and offers no guidance as to the presence, absence or mandated wording from on high of a note at the top of the Notables section. It has no bearing as a justification to remove or reword the heading that appears here or anywhere. In the absence of a Wikipedia guideline or policy, we editors have the flexibility and creativity to build articles, and this is what has been done in millions of articles.

3) These headings have been the de facto standard in hundreds of articles for years. I didn't know that I and other editors need to obtain consensus before making any change to an article, as Magnolia677 has demanded, nor that his approval is needed to maintain a longstanding status quo. This demand would cripple Wikipedia, as every edit -- no matter how long it has been in an article -- would be subject to the veto of any other editor. Even worse would be granting this dictatorial power to a belligerent editor like Magnolia677, who has turned a lengthy series of articles across the state of New Jersey into his own personal battlefield.

Magnolia677 appears to be creating confrontation solely for the sake of turning Wikipedia into a war of his own making. As requested above, the appropriate sanctions should include both a topic ban and interaction ban. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like a case of a double boomerang, not only because of the forum shopping by Magnolia, but also by the OP's own behavior. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to do anything about the underlying drama. We could try out an interaction ban, but then they'd probably just start even more pointless ANI threads, like I said above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually trying to play by the rules. Yesterday I cleaned up Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Of course, being in New Jersey, it had Alansohn's "personal touches" all over it. I deleted one of them, and gave a detailed explanation on the talk page about my reason. So as NOT to appear forum shopping, I disclosed that there was also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles, where this same concern was raised--but not responded to (except by Alansohn). Of course, Alansohn reverted the edit at Basking Ridge. So, instead of getting into an edit war, I asked for a third opinion. Because Alansohn stalks all my edits, he saw that I left a message at "third opinion", and added his own message there (despite the rule at "third opinion" that "no discussion of the issue should take place here"). But who cares about rules? Erpert, who watches over Third opinion, looked at Basking Ridge, labelled it "forum shopping", and still, I have no third opinion about something I have raised on two talk pages! As I said, I'm trying to play by the rules here. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can somebody quickly block User:DaoXan, who is adding a monstrously large template he created, as well as other templates, to so far some 150 Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser Why to block? I'm just tring to organize... DaoXan (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless they continue after this request that they stop I see no reason to block for this. DaoXan, please stop adding this template until the deletion discussion is over. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict: Since this user seems to have stopped, and has found this thread, a block doesn't seem necessary any more. I suggest to move to WT:JUDAISM or WP:TFD for a discussion of the issue of these templates. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "catalog line in a template" bug again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• There is a template Template:Etixx-Quick Step riders about some racing cyclists. Some articles about cyclists transclude it.

  At 17:41, 24 January 2015‎ User:Cs-wolves inserted a call of Template:Histmerge in it to call for a history-merge. Template:Histmerge inserts the line [[Category:Candidates for history merging]], and as a result Template:Etixx-Quick Step riders, and also every article that transcludes Template:Etixx-Quick Step riders, became members of Category:Candidates for history merging.

  At 22:43, 24 January 2015 I (User:Anthony Appleyard) obeyed the history-merge request and deleted the histmerge request template call that was in page Template:Etixx-Quick Step riders.

  But now at 16:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Category:Candidates for history merging still shows 9 articles about cyclists as members. When will the relevant buffers be flushed?

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps never. Since the job queue was screwed up some 18 months ago, the only sure way is to visit every page in the cat, and WP:NULLEDIT it, then see what's left. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the null edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grickles: copyright violations, block requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Grickles shows no sign of understanding or respecting our copyright policies. Recent edits containing large-scale copying have been:

• BC Bears from http://www.bcrugby.com/history/history/
• Belmont Shore RFC from http://www.belmontshorerfc.com/club-info
• Denver Barbarians RFC from http://www.denverbarbarians.com/club-news/about-the-barbos/752-dbrfc-building-year-1975-1979 and http://www.denverbarbarians.com/club-news/about-the-barbos/42-club-history
• Olympic Club RFC from http://www.ocrugby.com/history.html
• Old Mission Beach Athletic Club RFC from http://www.ombacrugby.org/about/

CCI requested here. Until and unless this editor shows understanding of our copyright rules and agrees to abide by them, I don't think he or she should be allowed to make further edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked given the significance of the issues. Wizardman 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ISupportCompleteley using multiple accounts?

This diff concerns me: [185]. S/he specifically says that s/he has "been blocked numerous times". S/he appears to have a grudge against User:Sandstein. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, do this user's actions remind you of anyone in particular? Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if by coincidence or not but this all happened following a heated talk regarding Sandstein's recent block [186] of Eric Corbett. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It has to be a coincidence. I do not like Eric Corbett, but he has served out his blocks honourably. Eric Corbett would never, in my opinion, resort to sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Im not talking about Eric here though I know he wouldn't resort to sock-puppetry as well, im talking about someone who may have used his block as an excuse to go off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. This looks like a sock of Piandme (talk · contribs), who goes on the occasional socking and disruption spree after his main account was blocked. There are similar accounts in my talk history. Nothing to do but WP:RBI, in my opinion.  Sandstein  06:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying that they'd "lay low until the new year" and moving onto multiple socks by their own admission? Sounds like a decent candidate. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 07:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For a long time now, the article Christ Myth Theory has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user Renejs is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the WP:TRUTH. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]. Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. [195]. Another problem related to the same user concerns WP:COI. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Wikipedia account is an WP:SPA to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring [196], [197] are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Wikipedia rules, ANI would be the only option [198], Bill the Cat 7 agreed [199] while Martijn Meijering proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules [200]. That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the WP:TRUTH, there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually is right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've got a really good basis for a topic ban here. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately, this is a case that was deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee in order to close in 2014, and they failed to impose the requested discretionary sanctions, which would permit the topic-ban by arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. Tutelary (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is more troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to game the system, violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg [201]). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. GoldenRing (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the editor's entire history here, I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the Nazareth/Nazarene articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from early Christianity would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the WP:TRUTH is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. Blackmane (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:

- Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)

- Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)

- Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)

- Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)

- T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)

- Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)

- Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)

- Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)

- Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)

- Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)

- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)

- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)

- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)

- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)

- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)

- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)

- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)

- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)

- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)

- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)Renejs (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as practically all scholars say (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:

According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[202]

Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, Michael Grant (one of the most prominent classicists of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.

The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, we can not revert to status quo! That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's false wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.

This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.

I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Wikipedia. But I think Wikipedia is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Wikipedia. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Wikipedia still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." Renejs (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Wikipedia. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose [his] will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.Renejs (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Wikipedia policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Wikipedia search function. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen to Martijn here, OK? If you aren't familiar with policies and guidelines, then you certainly shouldn't be trying to impose your admittedly flawed understanding of them, or adding templates you don't apparently completely understand the usage of. Also, honestly, if you want to reduce the chances of some sort of sanction being imposed, you might really want to read WP:ADOPT and have a good chance of getting some help there. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just like Martijn Meijering, this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong. The report is based on Renejs's behavior: repeated edit-warring, explicit "promise" to continue to edit war, and violations of COI. Content-related issues are irrelevant and belong at the talk page of the article.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Renejs

• Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support If he/she is here to build an encyclopedia, then he/she can edit other topics. If he/she is not, then he/she will go away, or breach the topic ban. If he/she learns to edit collaboratively, then in time the topic ban could be removed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough in the diffs provided to support a topic ban at this point. Renejs appears more reasonable than some of the interpretations of his diffs suggest. I don't know much about this area, but in the diffs provided above, some of the content he wants to include appears more neutrally written than the current text. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The complaint isn't about his views, it's about his edit-warring and other policy violations. He is not trying to win over people to his point of view, he is trying to force his views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged. Edit-warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you are falsely accusing, Mmeijeri. I am not trying to "force [my] views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged." There IS consensus on the Grant status quo version--it is false! Do you want a singing telegram informing you about this? EVERYONE has *already* agreed (even you, I'm sure). No one is contesting that there is at least one "serious scholar" today who espouses the CMT. No one challenges that Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, or Richard Carrier (at least one of these) is a "serious scholar." As a formality, I opened the RfC on the talk page precisely for this point (which is pretty obvious, anyway), merely for 'official' confirmation. In sum, then, there is no dispute regarding content here. Now, once Grant's statement is seen to be wrong today, then there is absolutely no reason for keeping this very serious (and easily proven) falsehood in the article. It needs to go immediately. (Once again, I caution that the Grant quote is not a historical statement 'from 1977,' nor does the status quo version have the words "or at least very few.")

I think that this whole discussion and arbitration was wrong-headed from the start and that there never was cause for arbitration, which has IMO been trumped up. Jeppiz and Mmeijeri keep insisting it's not about content but about behavior. However, it is about *content determining behavior* (at least, my behavior). It is against my principles to revert to a statement which EVERYONE (including myself) has already determined to be false. I consider Mmeijeri's insistence on such a revert grotesque. If Wikipedia insists on retaining statements which have already been *proven* false, then I would want nothing to do with the encyclopedia anyway and a ban would be welcome to me. BTW, I can say that this Grant statement is a very rare case. I doubt I would (or could) be so insistent on any other statement. So, let's get beyond this and put aside a statement which everyone agrees is false.

I'm afraid Mmeijeri's edits show rigidity and great difficulty "hearing" the other side. . . Once again, there has *already been consensus* that the status quo Grant statement is false (the RfC section simply confirmed the obvious). There is no voiced disagreement on this point. . . Thus, his insistence upon reverting to an obviously false statement is wrong-headed and could be interpreted as POV pushing--for it is not fact-based. Similarly for Jeppiz, John Carter, Bill the Cat 7, T. M. Drew, and the editors who refuse to part with a (cherished) statement by a well-known scholar from 1977--a statement that today is obviously invalid. Is such insistance not POV pushing?

Mmeijeri seems philosophically opposed (and strongly so) to a change made in an article before the discussion phase has ended. I think this is theoretically correct. But what he refuses to grasp is that *in this case* there is no discussion--the status quo statement has already been determined false by EVERYBODY! No one (not even Mmeijeri) contests this. Thus, BRD is not in force. That's already past. Now it's time to reject the statement (or update it by consensus!) and move on.Renejs (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false, but not that it needs to be removed.

Say no more. . . This is the problem--right here! You've got two parts to that sentence, Mmeijeri, and they don't go together: (1) There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false; and (2) but not that it needs to be removed. I say this: For heaven's sake, if there's "a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false," then it needs to go! That's my point. You don't need TWO consensuses, one for the determination of falsehood, and another for the deletion. Someone else could come along and object that there needs to be a 3rd consensus, etc. etc. All this is unnecessary and nowhere in the Wiki policy, AFAIK. Somebody does, however, need to take action on the fact that a seminal assertion is false. That action is important. After all, what benefit is it if people work to determine if statements are true or false, and then but everybody dithers and no one takes action? [BTW--for my education--where does one find the "dubious-discuss" tag? I've looked.]

You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first. As for the "dubious - discuss" tag, see Template:Dubious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[MM] By your own summary of the reverts there are at least four people who oppose the change, and you're the only one advocating it. The truth or falsehood of Grant's claim is irrelevant. We quote people saying false things all the time, as inevitably we must when we neutrally report on a debate where various sources disagree. Two sides that contradict each other cannot both be right, and yet we must neutrally report both. Also, even if there now was a consensus the line should be removed, that does not justify your earlier edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this even clearer: you refuse to revert a change that four or five people oppose and only you support. Clearly, you do not have a consensus for your change, and therefore the status quo version should remain. Nevertheless you refuse to revert. That's edit-warring, even if you are right. The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue. If you think five editors are ganging up on you to push a point of view, then you can add an NPOV tag, a "dubious - discuss" tag and appeal to one of our conflict resolution boards. Yet you refuse to do that, and insist on having things your way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentI just looked though the article in question and I think that Renejs has some concerns, which don't justify bad behavior but may mitigate it to some extent. First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs. If Renejs would agree to exercise patients and follow policy, then this thread should be closed. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban or more might be the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to work with others and exercise patience. But to do so we have to work together and listen to each other, not just make rules for others.Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. First you say some concerns don't justify bad behavior but then you argue that in fact it does. I don't think this is the place to discuss the content, suffice to say that it's an article on a fringe theory and the articles mixes both serious scholars and conspiracy theorists, so it's true it could and should be approved. But I know of no Wikipedia policy that allow heavy edit warring because one is convinced one is right. In the absence of such a policy, I'm afraid I fail to see the point of the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The bottom line is that after reading through this, I think you guys ought to give it another shot to work together. Renejs, from the his comments above and below appears to want to make it work. I may very well be wrong, but my gut tells me you might just be able to make it work. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been very willing to work with Renejs the whole time, and I think the others are too. The problem is not that we disagree with him (although we do), the problem is that he insists on reinserting a change that others have repeatedly reverted and otherwise objected to. He needs to stop edit-warring and try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing. If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board. If you want to join in the actual content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the Talk page, not here. The complaint here is his wilfully going against the consensus on the basis of an argument that he himself finds satisfactory but others don't. We aren't asking that he should stop arguing his case, but that he should stop edit-warring. You are not suggesting that he can unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached, are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is really not the place to introduce the *highly charged* and probably complex issue of whether the CMT is "fringe theory". That category tag has already been the target of edit warring (it is presently not on the article) and clearly no consensus has yet been attained there (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=639175941&oldid=639175067). Look, this very interesting article is really going to require the best in us all to attain NPOV. We all have a point of view, but I'm willing to work with you guys, if you're willing to work with me!Renejs (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, so do you agree to stop edit warring, revert your latest edit warring and to remove the sections about yourself from the article? Jeppiz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad the admins have kept this discussion open. It's Jeppiz who was largely responsible for hauling me in front of the admins for POV ("The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose to push his own POV," above). But Jeppiz' own considerable POV is now finally coming through, as with his one-sided view of "fringe theory" just mentioned above. We all have POV! It's like a zebra's stripes. We just don't all have the same POV. But by working together, we cancel out each other's POV and produce an article which is (hopefully) NPOV and beyond the scope of any single user. That's the beauty of Wikipedia--when it's working. But for this to work, it's critical to keep editors of a variety of POV's on board. If a user like Jeppiz is on a crusade to eliminate people with opposing POV, then Wiki gets a weak, non-fact-based article like the current one on the CMT--outdated and skewed to the conservative side, as admin 'I am One of Many' has implied above: "First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs." Speaking for myself, of course, I concur. This article needs me! We don't want crusaders chasing people away. . . I will be more specific--this article NEEDS my POV precisely to counter the POV of Jeppiz and a few others. Evidently, the article has lacked my POV for some time, because it leans to the right (as admin noted above) and is a decade or more behind the times. (We see it now: we're arguing about a Grant quote from 1977, and three-quarters of the "Further Reading" section is before 1950!)

If Wiki wants NPOV articles on Jesus (which is obviously a very important topic) it must accommodate users with a variety of POVs. This is how the system works--one balances the other. Though I don't agree with your POV, Jeppiz, I'm still willing to work with you. In fact, I welcome your participation, knowing you will cancel me out and Wiki will benefit. But are you ready to work with me? That's the question. And, if not, which one of us should go out the door? Obviously, the one who is NOT willing to collaborate, the one who insists "my way or the highway". . .

Specifically, I've already answered your edit warring charge. It takes at least two to do that, and I provided a list of edit warriors above (which includes you).

I've also answered YOUR demand that I revert my last edit. This is a reversion to a proven false statement. Why would anyone want this? Insisting on a proven false statement from 1977 demonstrates a serious inability to live with the facts today. That's more than just POV. Inability to tolerate proven facts is a serious liability for an agressive Wiki editor like Jeppiz. I would suggest, that if Jeppiz cannot accept the facts that 'fringe theory' is still unresolved and that the Grant statement is categorically false, then HIS role and behavior pattern needs to be examined. (Incidentally, I have no such opinion regarding Mmeijeri, who seems to have the gift of pulling to the center from all sides. I just think he has a hangup on protocol.)

As for the section on me in the article, if users think it should be it removed, then remove it! I will stay entirely away from that discussion, per COI. That doesn't interest me at all.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for him to remove the sections about himself, in fact I think he should steer clear of them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should clarify my comment re the topic ban. It is not to remove Renejs completely from the article indefinitely. I would only support a fixed length topic ban with the intention that Renejs go edit something that isn't as close to his interest and learn the ropes. This is true of most topic bans. Stepping away for a period to gain experience does work wonders as long as the Tbanned editor recognises the opportunity. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have seen quite a bit of edit warring on the Christ Myth Theory page and a couple of others. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass and edit war.--TMD Talk Page. 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per TMDrew. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per my above comments on the matter. The editor does not seem that they wish to change their opinion on the subject. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Too drastic a measure to try first. I think Renejes persists in his behaviour because he is getting away with it: his edit has been on the page for over a week, even though at least four editors object to it. Giving him a final warning and blocking him for thirty days if he doesn't react could change all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• previously involved support This is a perpetual issue on this article, and we need to start being severe with those who are disrupting the process of building real consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since he doesn't edit anything else, this would be equivalent to a siteban for him. Not (yet) warranted in this case. Bacchiad (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This comes across as a kneecapping in response to a routine content disagreement. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 30 day block of Renejs

• Which Martin Meijering proposed above. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Way too much cyber ink has been expended on what is a fairly run of the mill case of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus. Let's start here and if they don't learn their lesson we can always come back to the more serious sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Bacchiad (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block, particularly a 30 day one. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what I'm proposing. Over the past few days the disruptive behaviour has been dialed down, perhaps in reaction to statements made here. If so, I'm happy to see that, but the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed. Ideally Renejs would take it out himself (and in that case we don't even need an explicit administrative caution), but if he doesn't someone else needs to do it and then he does need to be warned that further edit-warring will not be tolerated. I don't know if 30 days is the appropriate length of a block in case of further violations, and maybe it doesn't need to be spelled out in the warning.

Also, note that while the content disagreement may be fairly routine, the user conduct has not been. The complaint here is about highly disruptive user conduct, and the details and nature of the content disagreement are not relevant to this complaint, though they are obviously relevant to an eventual resolution of the disagreement itself. If you read his statements in this ANI thread, you'll see he has blatantly denied existing Wikipedia policies! Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering, I think you're confused. You're also getting a little wild. You write that "the text that was edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five other editors still remains in the article and that still needs to be addressed." But I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. FYI, my participation in the group edit-war got an obviously false statement by Grant OUT of the CMT article. I didn't put anything in. My last revert was on Jan 6 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641192563&oldid=641176576. Also, since then I haven't touched the article until today when I updated a reference tag.

Admins: this is transparent harassment from Meijering. I'm surprised he's been able to continue doing it for so long. I think it's time to institute formal harassment proceedings against him (because he's really persistent) and I'm asking you directly how I might go about doing that. You can contact me on my user page or how you think appropriate. Wikipedia:Harassment defines it as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This is exactly what's been happening to me, and there's a growing record of it right here on this page. There are consequences, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment. Meijering has now graduated to inventing dirt to throw at me, and he's trying to hoodwink you admins. I think that's getting pretty serious.

As for conduct, I find the conduct of Meijering absolutely inexcusable.

Renejs (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion you have edit-warred two changes into the article: the removal of Grant's statement that no serious scholar has put forward the CMT and you've added a rebuttal, both of which changes survive in the latest version, in altered form. Both changes have been repeatedly reverted, and reinserted by you.

You don't seem to know the difference between removing something and putting it in. And what "rebuttal" did I put in? Are you inventing again? (Time for chicken soup. . .)

If you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that contrary to your assertion I've not at all been concerned with trying to get you blocked, but simply with getting these edit-warred changes reverted, at least until there is a consensus for a new version. In fact, I have been bending over backwards to offer you a way out.

I prefer you to stop bending over backwards and start making sense.

Since you claim none of your edit-warred changes survive in the latest form of the article, I'll now feel free to remove them until there is a consensus that supports them.

You don't seem to have yet figured out what my "edit-warred changes" were. They were the removal of one obviously false sentence from Grant: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That's it. Nothing else.

If you revert them again (as opposed to arguing for them on the Talk page), that will be (yet another) crystal clear case of edit-warring, which should have consequences.

Dunno what you're talking about. The only thing I'll definitely revert out is the Grant statement if you're foolish enough to put what everyone considers an OBVIOUS FALSEHOOD back in.

If you don't, then this thread will serve as a record of the complaints about your behaviour and your responses to them in case the disruptive behaviour resumes.

I'm happy to let this page stand as a witness to my behavior. You're the one being disruptive. This would have never happened had you not taken it to the admins and continued to prolong this charade for two weeks.

I've stated several times now, if you don't resume edit-warring and your edit-warred changes are removed, I see no reason for sanctions at this time.

Before anyone cares what you think, Meijering, first you have to demonstrate that you're rational.Renejs (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How the others who support sanctions will react to this is for them to decide. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering has just reverted to the old Grant statement which 100% consensus considers false (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=643228427&oldid=643128901). This needs to be noted.Renejs (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus that the statement is false in its abbreviated form, but not in its full form.

Precisely. And this matter is emphatically over the abbreviated form--not the "full form" (which has never appeared in the CMT article). There's a big difference between the two. Please don't muddy the waters by confusing them. If you want the "full form" (with the words "or at least very few") then you'll have to propose that on the talk page--and get consensus. We already have consensus that the short form is false and needs to go.

A more proper response might be to provide the full quote. But more importantly, there is no consensus that it needs to be removed. An attributed quote by a reliable source is still a notable view, even if it is false, and it is only reported as such, a view, and not in Wikipedia voice.

WRONG. But we all thank you for (tacitly) admitting that Grant's assertion is false. After two weeks, this is progress. . . Now you will need to convince everyone that Wikipedia should keep a false assertion which is not labeled clearly as such IN THE ARTICLE--for example: "According to Grant (writing in 1977), "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'--but this view is now false, for several "serious scholars" today indeed endorse the Christ myth theory. Grant further writes. . ." Of course, this is not what you're proposing, which is why your arguments for defending the "status quo" wording have no merit. I think you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia if you think that it will tolerate a false view 'in the guise of' a correct view, regardless of your specious recourse to "Wikipedia voice" (!). All editors have every right--indeed the duty--to revert your insertion of false material out of the article.

Also, there is implied consensus for removal of a statement which is acknowledged by all to be false. I've noted this before but you continually fail to hear: no one needs (or should wait for) a 'second consensus' to remove false material. This is contrary to wikipedia policy. Once material is acknowledged false, it needs to go. Your bringing in arguments about "notable view," "interesting" (you mentioned this on the talk page), etc. are just more casuistry ("the use of clever but unsound reasoning").

I reverted the text to the WP:STATUSQUO version, thereby reversing the changes that were edit-warred into the article over the objections of four or five editors. Reverting these edit-warred changes is not itself edit-warring. If a new consensus develops that the quote should be removed, either because it is false or for other reasons, then that's fine with me. Right now there is no such consensus and reverting to the status quo is entirely appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're careful to cover your butt and make sure nobody might think you're breaking any rules. . . And all the while you do something much worse: you break the spirit of Wikipedia by continually refusing to admit fact-based information into the article.Renejs (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you increasingly sensing, Meijering, that only you are insisting upon "a new consensus"? You need to self-revert and not start a new edit war by having inserted obviously false material of a very inflammatory nature into the CMT article.Renejs (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Renejs

• Suggested by me above, but not necessarily supported by me, who would prefer a topic ban if anything, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter.--TMD Talk Page. 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per John Carter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for a site ban unless and until he misbehaves on other topics as well, which seems unlikely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. GMarxx (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, how is repeatedly inserting a change that no one else supports and several others object to acting in good faith? I agree we should not be contemplating a site ban now, but I don't understand how people can say that without also pointing out there do need to be sanctions, because this blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Over-reaction, as noted below. The real remedy should be general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

---

This "wikihounding" of myself by user Martijn Meijering (Mmeijeri) has gone on long enough. I appeal to the administrators, whoever you are, to adhere to Wikipedia policy and not to invented "protocols" by Meijering or anyone else, especially when they don't understand Wiki policy themselves (see further). Meijering has now emerged as the main engineer of sanctions against me, continually forcing this issue. He says it's not about content (the Grant citation in the CMT article)--but it is--and he's getting weirder and weirder, writing things like "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant"(Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?) Such an attitude is astonishing when Wikipedia is about verifiability and getting statements as correct as possible. The critical 1977 Grant citation in the CMT article ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus") is causing this brouhaha, though it has already been verified FALSE by everybody today!

I have been hauled in front of arbitration for removing the above proven false statement by Grant. This is, however, entirely correct Wiki policy, especially when there is consensus--and there has been consensus (contrary to Meijering's obstinate insistence on the contrary)--because NOBODY thinks the Grant statement is any longer true (or that it has been for quite some time)! In Wikipedia one is supposed to remove clearly false material. When I first removed this assertion, I explained why--first in the brief edits, and then on the talk page. Because of resistance, I finally instituted an RfC section on the CMT talk page to confirm the (obvious) incorrectness of Grant's statement today. But Meijering, Jeppiz, and others still resisted, and they even hauled me in front of the admins for this. Meijering wants to go through some kind of arcane process and "try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing"--when, of course, we already have complete consensus. He writes: "If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board"--but these are all his own false protocol requirements.

In fact, a statement doesn't even have to be provably false to be removed--just unsourced: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). What is Meijering going on and on about here! I am being wikihounded, plain and simple. . .

Meijering writes that I cannot "unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached"--but, once again, no one doubts that a consensus HAS been reached. This is what he refuses to see. We're talking about removing information from an article which is simply and easily proven false. (At least three PhD's in the field now ascribe to the CMT, and at least one has since the 1970's--the New Testament scholar Fr. Thomas L. Brodie).

Here is Meijeri's convoluted solution (?) to this matter, which he astonishingly considers "very simple": "You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first." Sounds pretty damn complex to me, especially when we're dealing with a statement by Grant which the consensus has already determined to be untenable.

Meijering makes such a big deal about Wikipedia policy when he himself doesn't understand it, as in his misinterpreting RfC policy (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?--scroll to bottom). He continues to imperiously foist his OWN requirements for FALSE 'protocol' on me. The only reason I can see for this is presumably to attain compliance of behavior or even a topic ban. This is tantamount to censorship of the users which, of course, amounts to censorship of Wikipedia (POV).

Finally, Meijering and Jeppiz come out with one ridiculous assertion after another. Here are a few:

--Meijering: "The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue."

-- Meijering: "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant" (Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?)

--Meijering: "Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go. . ."

--Jeppiz: "this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong."

I rest my case and probably deserve a Barnstar. I'm being wikihounded and appeal to the admins to deliver a severe warning (at the very least) against Meijering and Jeppiz concerning their aggressive and unjustifiable behavior. It would be a most serious matter if any of the admins allowed themselves to be swayed by a wikihound like Meijering, one who is an active, aggressive, and controlling editor who is apparently closely patrolling the Jesus pages on Wikipedia.Renejs (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Four or five editors have reverted Renejs's edit, only he has supported it, yet he keeps reinserting it and it is still on the page. It's crystal clear that there is no consensus for his change. Also, I'm calling for the lightest possible sanction: a final warning telling him to revert his controversial change until there is a consensus for that specific change, as opposed to some related issue he thinks is decisive. If he refuses, I'm calling for a thirty day block.

I'm starting to wonder whether it was a mistake to bring this to the general section as opposed to the edit-warring / 3RR subsection. There is a clear violation of 3RR, which I thought was intended as a bright line. Can some administrator step in and take action? Is there anything we still need to wait for? A controversial change has been edit-warred into the article by a single SPA with a COI, over the objections of four or five other editors, and it has remained there for at least a week or so. I'm not sure why people are voting on the various proposed sanctions, especially the involved editors (myself included), since I thought this wasn't a vote. Are we waiting for some kind of quorum of administrators to weigh in? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer he refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add that Meijering (user Mmeijeri) has been accused of bullying in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Me.2C_.22constantly_mentioning_other_editors_by_name.22. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The user making that accusation (Homni) is a sock puppet of PennySeven and has been blocked indefinitely. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You were still bullying.

And I see that you yourself have refused to self-revert, heatedly saying "don't lecture me! . . . I don't have to undo my revert". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Fractional_Reserve_Banking You're evidently a hypocrite too.

There as here I was insisting on a consensus for a controversial change. So, no, I did not have to self-revert. The reason you do have to self-revert in this case is because in your case the sequence was: bold edit by Renejs (fine), reverted by someone else (fine), reinserted by Renejs (edit-warring, several times in fact). You are not supposed to reinsert a bold change that has been reverted by someone else before obtaining a consensus. You are welcome to make a Bold change, and everybody else is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And what about your history of obstinately refusing to "get the point"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note . Here the user even said "we are all going of die of old age on this." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Comment_from_PirateButtercup

And I see you've resisted changes to the Grant quote before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note Renejs (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Conceding some commonsense exceptions, we don't usually start with the nuclear option when dealing with a problem editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose no evidence of problem editing outside the area. They are currently a WP:SPA. give them some WP:ROPE. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't see enough to take a drastic step. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose Site bans are reserved for the most tenacious of problem editors, generally only after they have gone prolonged periods of time violating behavioural guidelines with no sign they will ever internalize our policies and procedures. Renejs certainly does have a long way to go with regard to understanding how our content decisions are made on this project and contributing appropriately, and some kind of sanction (if only a temporary block for the next revert violation) may very be in order, but he hasn't begun to approach the level of disruption that has traditionally been reserved for site bans. Indeed, those kinds of decisions are rarely considered to be in the purview of ANI and I doubt any admin is going to act to try to impose such a massive punishment based on the behaviours being discussed here. Snow talk 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This seems like a routine content disagreement to me. If it really isn't, administrative caution or censure should precede any block or site ban, except in some dire emergency of which this clearly isn't. BlueSalix (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not enough disruption to warrant this. In fact, I don't see any evidence of this user editing disruptively anywhere else. We can probably do a temporary page ban or temporary block, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request

User:Renejs, can I ask you to clarify some things for me? I've just read through the above but haven't gone through the article's talk page recently.

• Above, the "no serious scholar" comment appears to be attributed to Michael Grant and Robert M Grant. Is one of those a typo or have I misread?

It's Michael Grant. The edition I possess is Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Charles Scribner's Sons (New York, 1977). The paragraph in question is on p. 200. It reads (note the two inner quotations!): To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicy of Jesus'--or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Have I got this right: we were quoting Grant's 1977 "no serious scholar" statement unmodified, despite Grant having in 1995 modified his comment with "or at any rate very few"? (It's bedtime here.)

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The important words "or at least very few" are in the original quote, but have never been included on the CMT page (to my knowledge)--a very tendentious omission. Also, the CMT version has (equally tendentiously) omitted any mention that the citation is from a 1977 publication, which leads the reader to suppose that it is a recent quote from a reputable scholar alive today and not from about 40 years ago.

This is probably not the place to go into the astonishing intricacies of the Grant citation. He is actually citing two other writers (from 1957 and 1968, according to his footnote), one of which was not a scholar at all but apparently a novelist Roderic Dunkerley. Thanks, Anthony, for your interest and support. Yes, I do feel a tad lonely in this wiki-world and that I'm being "railroaded" out, basically because my view is not liked and I'm able to support it with verifiable facts.Renejs (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding me. Did anyone defend the obviously false Wikipedia text while knowing about the omitted modifying language? If so, could you please list them? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering if by far the most aggressive user reverting to the "short" Grant statement which he seems to sanctify by calling "status quo." In fact, he continues to revert to it as we write, and has done so several times in the last four days (latest here [203]). It's been explained to him numerous times that this version of the Grant statement is obviously false, and that it has been so for many years. It's also been explained to him (repeatedly) that there's total consensus that it's false (I put in an RfC section on the talk page just to confirm this). But none of this has seemed to matter.

It has not been 'explained to me' that this is the case, I agree and have done so from the beginning. It has been explained to you several times that 1) this doesn't matter as it's an attributed statement and 2) this ANI complaint is about your disruptive behaviour, not about your disagreement with the current version. The quote still needs to be accurate of course, and I've drawn attention to the fact that part of the quote was missing and proposed adding it back. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Meijering appears to strongly resist any substantive changes to the article, unless they are made according to his proprietary (and completely incomprehensible to me) 'wiki' protocols and at a glacial pace--if ever. I am astonished at his ability to violate the spirit of this encyclopedia which, above all, professes to value up to date and verifiably correct content.

This is not some arcane and proprietary protocol, it is standard Wikipedia procedure. Changes can only be added by consensus, not by edit-warring. Observe that I have proposed a number of changes for which there is no consensus and that I haven't tried to edit-war them into the article. Some of the other editors have also objected to parts of the page for literally years and haven't been able to get a consensus for their changes either, and you don't see them engaging in edit-warring. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Other users who have reverted to the false Grant statement are (in decreasing order of reverts) Bill the Cat 7, Jeppiz, and T. M. Drew, all with considerable support from John Carter who writes (above): "I think WP:ROPE might be applicable here. The longer [Renejs] refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)" Thus Carter also wishes me to revert to the "short" form of Grant's statement and has furthermore tried to maneuver me into a severe penalty of a topic ban if I don't.Renejs (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No one objected to correcting the text, and as far as I know no one objected to adding an indication of when the quote was written. I've proposed both modifications myself. I was aware that the full quote said "or at any rate very few", but hadn't noticed it was missing in the CMT article. I was not aware that Grant was citing earlier scholars until someone pointed it out on the Talk page. Earlier versions of the quote may have had the full text, I'm not sure. The Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus articles have or at one time had the full quote. But none of this matters, because a content dispute is supposed to be solved on the Talk page or through appeal to a dispute resolution board, not through edit warring and policy violations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And I agreed with the proposals when made on the talk page, and even proposed that the quote start with the date of inclusion to indicate that it is about 40 years outdated. And, unfortunately, I didn't notice the lack of the full quote reproduction either. And I also note that Renejs seems to be once again profoundly over-dramahtizing himself and his actions. Had he shown an ability to act in a collegial manner, and not engage in regular personal aspersions on others, particularly Martijn (which is remarkable, because so far as I can tell Martijn is the only editor there who really personal supports/agrees with Renejs about the likely nonexistence of Jesus). His conduct, and the rather arrogant and obnoxious nature of it, is the reason this discussion was started and sanctions proposed. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close this thread. This has pretty much boiled down to a content dispute, which now looks like it can be settled on the article talk page. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, have you actually read the complaint? This is definitely not a mere content dispute, there are serious conduct issues. We have blatant violations of policy, including a clear violation of 3RR ([204], [205], [206], [207]), repeated threats to continue edit-warring "as long as it takes", most recently in the past couple of days (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory&diff=prev&oldid=643568896), refusal to appeal to a conflict resolution board if he feels he is being railroaded, a COI as a published author on this subject, apparent plans to portray himself as the victim of Wikipedia shenanigans outside Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renejs&diff=prev&oldid=643654470, "I'm writing articles for various mags and online blogs about Wikipedia "from the inside." I'll basically be chronicling my digital wiki-voyage and how the encyclopedia has managed to pretty much turn this well-meaning newbie into a disgruntled bannee in less than a month!"), constantly casting aspersions, mostly with clearly false accusations, and general incivility.

Note that I never asked for more than an administrative caution (though perhaps coupled with a warning that the next violation would lead to a 30 day block). Personally I have only been concerned with getting the edit-warred changes out of the text and to stop further edit-warring. That has now been accomplished, and the bad behaviour had been dialed down, so I no longer saw a pressing reason for sanctions. Renejs's behaviour in recent days has made me less certain of that however. In any event, even if we decide to close this case without sanctions, it should be clear that this isn't a mere content dispute. In particular, the expressed intent to write about the present episode in various magazines is a highly disturbing new development. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about tendentious editing

Please leave this open. There is a prima facie case for tendentious editing that needs looking at. I've just started looking into the history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 17:48, 2 January 2015 our article said

  Grant also asserted that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'.[223] Writing in 1977, Grant also stated that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", and that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

• 19:03, 2 January 2015 an editor posts the Grant quote, in context, on the talk page:

  “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [Emphasis added]

Note: Grant expressly states a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus. Whoever added that to wikipedia was lying and deceiving our readers by cutting Grant off mid-sentence and selectively quoting him.

• 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."
• 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs (Rene) edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.
• 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.
• 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"

Note: The above isn't finished I'll get back to this as soon as I can. But can I just say for now that as a rule I judge people who deliberately add or restore false information to articles more harshly than I do experts who lose their patience with Randys. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to, and he kept reinserting them. Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate. He needs to obtain a consensus first. I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion. I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.

Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

[The following is Rene (User:Renejs) quoting and responding to Mmeijeri (Martijn Meijering)]:

[Mmeijeri] What is your point? Rene's additions had been objected to. . .

[Renejs] They were my deletions--your additions.

[Mmeijeri] . . . and he kept reinserting them.

[Renejs] Yes. And your deletions had been objected to by myself and Gekritzl, but you kept reinserting YOUR version. The version which is verifiably correct today is obviously the version which belongs in the article.

[Mmeijeri] Reverting to the status quo was entirely appropriate.

[Renejs] No, not when the status quo is false. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Change needs to be in the positive, not negative direction. You've got it backwards. But we've been through this all before. And you misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. It doesn't mean that the pre-existing version is necessarily better. It just means "the last version." One never reverts to it when it's known to be false. This should be too elementary to have to say to an experienced editor like yourself.

[Mmeijeri] He needs to obtain a consensus first.

[Renejs] Again: no. This is your famous "second consensus" requirement, Meijering! We already have total consensus that the short Grant version is false. Therefore it must not appear in the article in that form. If you want another form, then you need to propose that on the talk page--after the incorrect statement has been removed. We don't keep provably false statements in the article, possibly for years, pending possible formulation of a 'better' versions by 'consensus.' That might never happen, and improvement would effectively be impeded by one tendentious editor like yourself who refuses to go along with 'consensus.'

[Mmeijeri] I have no idea who inserted the quote without the "or at any rate any few", or who removed that part if it was there already. I do know I've drawn attention to the missing part of the quote, and advocated its insertion.

[Renejs] I question this.

[Mmeijeri] I'm waiting for a consensus to do so, Renejs being one of the people who object to it.

[Renejs] Absolutely. And it's clear that you'll be waiting an awfully long time--which suits you just fine, because you're trying to make removal of false material NOW contingent on achieving questionable consensus on some other version possibly far into the future. What that means, in practical terms (and please take careful note of this), is that per your scenario the false Grant statement can stay in the article virtually forever, pending a consensus which YOU will be able to impede as long as you like. That's a very effective blocking m.o.--and I gather it's been successful for a long time.

[Mmeijeri] Also pray tell who you think has deliberately added or restored false information. That's a pretty serious allegation, I hope you have some evidence for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

[Renejs] YOU DID! You're the undisputed king of reverting to the false statement, Meijering. You did it again two days ago [208]. Every time you revert to the short form of Grant, you are 'deliberately adding and restoring false information'! And, yes, that is indeed a "pretty serious allegation" which is why you need to be disciplined or at least prevented from continuing on this road. Yesterday, Bill the Cat 7 followed your example by also reverting to the false statement. So, you see, you are having a very destructive effect on the article and have obviously found an effective formula for indefinitely stonewalling its improvement.Renejs (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Right now only you stand in the way of restoring the full quote. As you know I've proposed adding that back, as well as inserting the words "in 1977". I didn't get a consensus for that change because you objected, and I won't edit-war it into the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help resolve the content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the article Talk page, not here. This complaint is about user conduct, including edit-warring. You are not suggesting edit-warring is appropriate behaviour in a content dispute are you? Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if the "at any rate" bit was removed in this diff [209], which looks like a good faith attempt by an anonymous IP to reduce unnecessary duplication of Grant's words. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I might believe you if there were any duplicated words. The IP moved the sentence to a different part of the section so the diff wouldn't show up their deletion of "or at any rate very few" and left a lying edit summary.

Would you please remove the comments you inserted into my comments, per WP:TPG? If you want to respond to particular points I've raised, quote me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that requires this, but I'll be happy to do it. If others object, I'm sure they'll chime in.

[The following is Mmeijeri (Martijn Meijering) quoting and responding to Anthonyhcole]:

• 22:28, 2 January 2015 Jeppiz: "Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• 00:28, 3 January 2015 Mmeijeri: "That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly."

This was in response to discovering that Grant is citing other scholars. It had nothing to do with the "in 1977" or "or at any rate very few", both of which I support and have supported all along. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 18:42, 5 January 2015 Renejs edits the article to move the date of Grant's commentary from the middle to the front of the paragraph so it's clear all the quotes are from 1977, and mentions two serious scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.

He reinserts material several editors had already objected to without obtaining a consensus. He could have added a "dubious-discuss" tag, tried to gain a consensus on the Talk page or have appealed to a conflict resolution board, but chose to edit-war instead. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 19:46, 5 January 2015 Mmeijeri reverts.

A purely procedural revert, as I explained in the edit message. There was no consensus for this change (it had been reverted several times already), and it needed to be discussed first. As it happens, the substantive objection that caused the lack of consensus was not to the "in 1997", as far as I can tell no one objects to that. It was also not about mentioning the two serious scholars, whose inclusion I strongly support. The substantive objection here is that we do not debate our sources, specifically not by adding selective rebuttals. The material can be added elsewhere in the article (and does in fact appear elsewhere), but not as a selective rebuttal. Renejs is welcome to dispute these points on Talk or to appeal to a conflict resolution board, but not to impose his will unilaterally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 05:58, 6 January 2015 Renejs opens an RfC, "Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, what's with the "lying"? That's a very serious accusation. Also note that the following words were in fact duplicated: "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn, how do you justify this 22 January 2015 edit, restoring the falsehood that according to classical historian Michael Grant 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'; when you have known since 19:03, 2 January 2015 that it is a misleading selective quote, misrepresenting the source's actual position?

By the way, a couple of comments you've made above make me think you might benefit from reading WP:BOOMERANG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the status quo version. The sequence of events was something like this: Renejs had made his bold move, I had initially reverted it, then he reinserted it, then I proposed a compromise, then others rejected and reverted that compromise, then Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Wikipedia procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.

In the meantime we discovered that the "or at any rate" bit was missing and I drew attention to it. We also found out that Grant was citing other scholars, which is (somewhat) clear in the full quote as Renejs quoted it on the talk page since it uses apostrophes, but not in the way it was cited in the article. Several people advocated fixing these problems.

Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained. I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo, Renejs disagreed, but refrained from further edit-warring, and limited his disagreements to discussions on the Talk page. As I had announced I would, I said I no longer saw any pressing reason for sanctions, since I only wanted the edit-warring to stop.

At no stage was the conflict over Renejs wanting to restore the full quote and others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.

First of all, *no one at all* is arguing in favour of the truncated version or insisting it should remain. I most certainly did not want to do so, since in general I think Wikipedia is wrongly slanted against the CMT, which does have serious supporters. Not many, but a few, and I've long felt they have been falsely smeared and edit-warred out of articles by certain editors. I also feel Wikipedia is far too deferential towards biblical scholarship, despite the serious concerns about a lack of impartiality and methodological soundness coming from both inside and outside the field. Deliberately arguing for a truncated version would go entirely against this long-held conviction of mine. I really shouldn't have to reveal my personal views on the matter, but I hope it helps dispel any notion that I'm engaged in tendentious editing.

Secondly, Renejs does not want to restore the full version at all! He wants to take out the Grant statement about "no serious scholar ... or at any rate very few" altogether. In fact, I think he wants to remove the entire Grant paragraph. And his reason is that he feels Grant is wrong or biased. Get this, we have an article dedicated to a theory with only a tiny amount of scholarly support, in which many proponents are represented generously, including several minor and long dead ones, and for balance we have one rather small criticism section. In this criticism section we quote a number of critics who are generally scathing. Note that we quote them with attribution, not saying or implying they are right, we merely report their views. And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!

Thirdly, I proposed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Making_the_Grant_quote_more_accurate) making a few changes that I thought would be uncontroversial (making clear where Grant is citing others, adding the words "in 1977" to deal with a concern Renejs had, and restoring the "at any rate" bit). Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement. In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article! As I said, I won't edit-war changes into the article without a consensus. In the meantime I've made a BOLD move to insert an fcn tag to at least draw attention to the problem on the article page, lest a passer-by remain unaware of it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do know all that. I am asking you to recognise and acknowledge that restoring this statement to the article - a statement that we all agree is false and misleading - was very bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If by that you mean I was wrong to do it, then no I don't think it was very bad. My understanding of the rules is that when there is no consensus on what should happen, you should revert to the status quo, not to your own preferred version. You can make BOLD proposals in the hope they will gain a consensus, but you shouldn't try to force them on others. There are some exceptions to this related to WP:BLP, but those are the rules as I understand them. If I'm mistaken about this, I'll be happy to better informed.

If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I've asked Renejs to clarify whether he objects to restoring the full quote as an interim solution, or whether he simply won't commit to it indefinitely. I was asking for the former and thought that was clear enough, but it never hurts to ask I suppose. If you have constructive suggestions about what I should have done instead or should do next, I'll be happy to hear them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn. Do not restore content to Wikipedia that you know to be false, as you did here.

Renejs was wrong to edit war but it's something we'd all (most of us, anyway) do when we're new and a group of people is systematically restoring false information to Wikipedia. It deserves a warning, and at most, a short block for emphasis.

Deliberately restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia when there is unanimous agreement on the talk page that it is false and misleading deserves at least a ban from editing in that topic area, but realistically (if you can't acknowledge you understand how wrong it was to do that) a ban from Wikipedia is the only appropriate remedy in my opinion. Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am advocating those changes and have been ever since I noticed the truncation and only Renejs's objections are stopping me from carrying them out. I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. I can't very well say we need to insert my corrections because I'm right, but we can't insert Renejs's because he's wrong can I? Per WP:BRD I could have made a BOLD attempt to restore the missing bits and wait for someone to REVERT it if they disagreed, but I decided to be super careful and ask for a consensus *first*. I want these changes, but I thought and still think the rules say I can't without a consensus. If an administrator can reassure me inserting this change will not be held against me, I'll be happy to do it.

I can't believe you're suggesting sanctions against me are in order as a result of having been scrupulous about following the rules. During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so. Renejs too has never suggested I should at least restore the full quote, something I would have done gladly. In fact I proposed just that myself and it is deference to his right to object as per the rules as I understand them that kept me from acting as you are now suggesting I should have. Why don't you tell Renejs he should not oppose those changes? Note that I haven't reverted any attempts to insert the full quote, only Renejs's attempt to remove even more pieces from Grant's quote and to add a selective rebuttal. Also note that Renejs hasn't complained that people are stopping the full quote from being restored as that's not what he wants, while at the same time the others, myself included, do want this. I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out, I argued against a site ban, a topic ban and even a thirty day block without a prior warning and dropped even that after my only concern (stopping the edit-warring) was achieved through other means. I am shocked this is now being held against me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood, I'll try to clarify what I mean. I believe what should happen now is for the full and accurate Grant quote to be restored, together with an indication that it was written in 1977. I've advocated this from the moment I learned of the truncation and I believe everybody else but Renejs wants this. I believe Renejs objects to this even as an interim measure, because he wants Grant to be removed entirely because he believes Grant is wrong, but just to be sure I've asked him to clarify. It was my understanding that I couldn't make the changes I've just outlined without a consensus, and we didn't have one at the time and still don't. Therefore I reverted to the status quo instead, as I believed then and still believe the rules specify.

Note that I'm not asking Renejs to give up on his objection to Grant, but merely to consent to the change I'm proposing now as an interim measure, and which it is my understanding Anthonyhcole says I should have applied unilaterally. If Renejs can later obtain a consensus that Grant should indeed be removed because he is wrong, then of course that should happen. Right now there is no such consensus.

If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the rules and if I could and should instead have restored first the status quo and then immediately added back the missing part of the quote because I knew it was missing then I apologise and won't be doing anything like that again. If an administrator can step in and clarify the rules I would be very grateful. In my defense I will point out that out of an abundance of caution I didn't take the second step unilaterally but first proposed it on the Talk page for others to comment on and when Renejs objected I held off. There is absolutely no bad faith involved, at the very worst I misinterpreted the rules in good faith. I think it would be very unjust if an honest attempt to be extra careful was punished. Either way I hope an administrator will soon step in and clarify the rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We can on with this as long as necessary until we've smoked every bug out of the woodwork of Meijering's slippery and convoluted logic. I only sit down at this page once a day--after my more important work is done--so I can carry as long as it takes. But I will say that we've come to a nadir of irrationality in what follows. For those of you still reading, I here offer my latest feedback.

(1) [Meijering] Renejs had made his bold move. . .

Removing a proven false statement from 1977 is not a bold move. It's routine--or should be.

(2) . . . Renejs reverted reverts by about four other people and then for a long time his version stood in the article over the objections of four or five other editors. The others gave up at that point, not wanting to edit-war themselves. Despite discussions on the Talk page Renejs refused to self-revert and otherwise follow Wikipedia procedures, repeatedly threatening to edit-war.

(a) It was not 'me against everybody.' Gekritzl also reverted away from the false Grant citation. (b) As mentioned before, I of course have refused Meijering's ridiculous mandate to self-revert on the grounds of principle--I will not insert false material per another user's self-serving protocol inventions. (c) None of my changes remaining has nothing to do with this. As long as the false Grant statement remains in the article, I will be impelled to seek its removal by discussion and, when that does not work, action.

(3) Then on this ANI page, Renejs insisted he was falsely accused of edit-warring changes into the article, since none of his changes remained.

I've never claimed I was falsely accused of edit warring. That's a correct accusation. But you, Bill the Cat 7, etc. were also part of that edit war! And you've continued to edit war the Grant quote, whereas I've stopped reverting until this discussion (hopefully) reaches some sort of resolution.

(4) I then announced I would now feel free to restore the status quo text since Renejs no longer claimed to have any of his changes in it. After I reverted to the status quo. . .

It appears we may have made no progress at all. Merjering continues to manifest a colossal failure to hear. Once again: reverting to a proven false 'status quo' is always wrong. As noted in this discussion above, it's editing IN REVERSE.

(5) At no stage was the conflict over . . . others somehow wanting to truncate it to mislead others into believing there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously.

Whoa. The only reason Gekritzl, myself, and certain other users insist upon removing the truncated Grant quote is because it leads the reader precisely to suppose that "there are no serious scholars who support the CMT or take it seriously." FYI, I believe that substituting the entire original Grant paragraph would be no better, for reasons given above. But that's a separate discussion. We're talking here about the proven false (short) form of the Grant citation which Meijering and a few others continue to force into the CMT article, come hell or high water.

Hey, folks, this isn't rocket science. The logic couldn't be simpler: (a) The short Grant citation is false. (b) Ergo, it needs to go. Period. End of discussion. Then we move on to other things. . . like added words, "annihilated," compromise version, blanking the whole paragraph, etc. etc. Of course, the problem is that we can't get to those other things until we get through this roadblock. Meijering has to become a productive user by allowing changes to the article based on verifiable content today. This is the problem!

A note on Meijering's (apparently new-found) sympathies for the CMT position and the uphill struggles it has no WIkipedia: You know, sometimes an adversary pretends to be your friend--and that's the worst kind of friend to have. I've seen him argue both sides of several issues. So, the bottom line for me is action, not words. And from what I've seen, his actions betray a thinly disguised anti-CMT position. Of course, I could be wrong--but it's irrelevant. I'll admit this, though: if he's my ally, he sure has a strange way of showing it!

(6) And now Renejs wants to take out Grant's criticism altogether because he personally thinks Grant is wrong!

Today, Grant is demonstrably wrong (at least in his short version) and your not seeing it makes me question your sympathies expressed in your immediately preceding paragraph. But the entire Grant paragraph has to be discussed separately. It has many elements and we can't get to them until we resolve the first element which has produced this roadblock: the short form of the Grant statement "no serious scholar." If we can't get rid of an obviously false assertion (which, incidentally, is precisely why I picked it), then we're never going to manage material which is far less black-and-white.

Unfortunately, nobody can do anything until Meijering--an active editor on the CMT page--changes his m.o. If someone makes a change, all he has to say is, "We don't have consensus for that." And so it's reverted back in. Even if a statement is false, he can still say: "We don't have a consensus for it's removal." And so it stays. Forever. Effectively, this has chilled the CMT page to the point where it is decades out of date and also anti-CMT (according to a neutral voice on this page above). My interest is to move it to the center and NPOV. I don't think that will be possible with Meijering's current m.o.

(7) Right now the only thing that is standing in the way of fixing the truncation is Renejs's disagreement.

Whoa again! This is disgusting. Show me, Meijering, where I've opposed adding words like "In 1977," and "or at any rate very few." It's entirely the opposite. You are a loose cannon now--very wild. . . Anybody can add those words at any time, as far as I'm concerned. For you to suggest otherwise is uncalled for. If you think I would remove them, you are more irrational than even I thought. You have now reached just about the epideme of nonsense.

(8) In other words, his insistence that Grant is wrong and should therefore not be included at all is keeping the truncated version in the article!

Does anybody understand this? How could my insistence that Grant is wrong be keeping it in the article? This may be one for the books. Seems it is another attempt to accuse me of what Meijering's been doing all along--like, you know: "Hey, pass the blame on him."

(9) If you simply mean that it is undesirable that the truncated quote remains in the article until we have a new consensus, then I agree completely, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Easy answer: Get rid of the false statement. Why is this so difficult for you?

(10) [Meijering to Anthonyhcole] During this whole conflict no one has ever suggested that anyone should unilaterally restore the full quote, you are the first to do so.

I can't see where Anthony said anything about unilaterally restoring the full quote. His question was: "Do you recognise that there is never any excuse for knowingly adding or restoring false and misleading information to Wikipedia?"

(11) [Meijering to Anthonyhcole] I have been bending over backwards to offer Renejs a golden bridge out.

Sorry. You extend a poisoned hand to me. Renejs (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep it brief because people have complained about walls of text and I too have been guilty of producing them, for which I apologise. It now appears I misunderstood your objection. I'm hopefully correctly understanding you now if I say you do not object to adding back the truncated bits, but reserve the right to continue arguing for the deletion of the entire quote later. If so, I think we can and should insert the truncated bits right away, close this ANI complaint and then proceed to deal with any objections you may have. Perhaps this will require mediation as suggested by Ncmvocalist. I'd be all in favour of that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

More eyes please?

↑ The above sub-thread sums it up, IMO. I'm lost for words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that nothing appears to have happened so far, I expect nothing will happen now either. I have observed that the sheer amount of text some user(s) in the above sub-thread are generating is overwhelmingly excessive. In fact, the excessive text and needless reversions to champion the BRD process are probably unhelpful even at the article too.

Still, it may be better if another attempt is made by the parties to resolve the dispute. One possible method is a type of mediation (have never used formal mediation, DRN, or informal mediation so I won't say much about that). The other method requires everyone to exercise more restraint without supervision. So what does the latter involve?

Short and simple questions need to be raised about proposed changes to the article (whether they are new changes or changes to go back to an older version of the article). The responses to the question need to be similarly concise. Some people dislike 'straw poll votes' but at least it clarifies what position each editor takes to each question, and the rest of the comment after the vote is reviewed to understand the rationale for why that position is adopted. Then if there is still no consensus, let the same question(s) be answered through an article RfC in the same format without walls of text overwhelming everyone. Then a request to assess the consensus can be made, and after it is closed, hopefully there is more clarity regarding what the consensus is.

My suggestion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TLDR summary

OK. Renejs (Rene) is a published author on the topic. He noticed a factual error based on an extremely old source (1977). Our article quoted a noted expert (Grant) as saying that no serious scholar had proposed the non-historicity of Jesus. So Rene added the fact that X and Y serious scholars have since come out and proposed exactly that.

We all know that's arguing with the source, so he was reverted. Edit wars and truly BITY discussion ensued. In the midst of this discussion, it turns out Grant had been selectively misquoted. He said no serious scholars proposed non-historicity - well a few have, but they've failed to convince anyone. (Or words to that effect I've just done an all-nighter and can't be bothered looking for the quote.) So, now it's clear we're misrepresenting the source when we just use the "short version" of Grant's statement.

More edit warring ensues, with Rene trying to add his "argument with the source" (the two scholars X and Y) while removing the misrepresentation of the 1977 source and being reverted, but when they revert him, Martijn Meijering and the other owners keep restoring the falsehood. This has been going on since the misrepresentation of the source was made clear and unanimously agreed to be a misrepresentation of the source on 2 January, and the misrepresentation of the source still stands.

Rene needs educating about WP:SYN and WP:EW. That's all. The others need a serious looking at. I've seriously looked at Martijn and he shouldn't be let near an article again until he acknowledges there is no excuse for repeatedly knowingly restoring misleading content. The same may apply to the others. I haven't looked.

Goodnight. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been accused of bad behaviour, I may perhaps be permitted to respond. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible on account of complaints about my earlier walls of text, for which I've apologised. I fully acknowledge I kept reverting to the status quo text even after I discovered it had been truncated. However, this was because I believed that was as far as the rules about edit-warring *permitted* me to go. I did however simultaneously propose on the Talk page what Anthonyhcole suggests I should have done straight away, which is to correct the truncation as well. I further believed (mistakenly as it now turns out) that Renejs objected to adding back the full quote even as an interim solution. If it turns out my interpretation was wrong and I should either have left Renejs's changes unchallenged or reverted them but corrected the truncation at the same time instead of merely calling for it, then I apologise unreservedly. I understand that misinterpreting the rules is not a justification, but I believe it is a mitigating circumstance, especially if the offensive behaviour was caused by a good faith abundance of caution, and a desire to follow the rules strictly, as it was, even though I may have ended up unintentionally breaking the rules rather than observing them. In any event, there now appears to be a total consensus that the truncated bits should be restored. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Observations, and Request for General Sanctions

First, at this point, without reviewing the long history of edit-warring on this article and related articles, I will Oppose any of the various site-ban proposals. The community appears to be deeply divided, and attempting to deal with a polarized community by topic-bans at this noticeboard usually further polarizes the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second, the underlying problem is that cases involving the Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, that is, that there never was any historicity of Jesus, were deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee. Historicity of Jesus had been the subject of much disruptive editing for a long time. Then a specific editor showed up and began playing on that disruption, and was topic-banned. He then, in the only reasonable request that he made, requested that the ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions. ArbCom accepted a case, but, in spite of evidence that discretionary sanctions were in order, simply decided to affirm the topic-ban, as if the disruption had started with that editor, which it had not. Christ myth theory still needs discretionary sanctions. Topic-bans are probably still needed for several editors, but that decision should be made via the discretionary sanctions process, not via hyper-ventilation and hyper-emotional process here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than imposing topic-bans on any specific editors, the community should impose community general sanctions on the topic of Historicity of Jesus, including Christ myth theory, which denies the historicity. Since ArbCom sanctions do work better than community sanctions, the ArbCom should be requested to reopen the arbitration to convert these community sanctions into ArbCom sanctions, but that can be done in parallel.

• Support community sanctions, as proposer, for Historicity of Jesus, broadly defined. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the record; premature and other steps in dispute resolution need to be properly tried for this dispute as I said in the section above. If problems remain/persist after those attempts are undertaken properly, and it goes beyond an issue concerning certain editors, then I'd reconsider - but there is simply no need to put a scheme until that is established. GS or DS is not the status quo, and should be used sparingly as a final option only, as it can be just as disruptive to building an encyclopedia as it can in assisting for that to occur. If there are other issues, it should be raised in a separate thread and not clamped onto the end of this one because there is a sign of division on an issue. I also think it's fairly foolish to ask for community sanctions if ac sanctions are sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About Pigsonthewing aka Andy Mabbett. Apart from other talks rolling, this is plain trolling (after this). It disrupts the discussion. I request revert (remove the trolling post), and prevent Andy reenacting, either by strong talk or by blocking. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) notified [210] . User Pigs/Andy deleted the notification: [211]. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) DePiep, just out of curiosity, what part of WP:TPO says it was okay for you to refactor his comment in the first place? I honestly don't see any indications of trolling there, just Andy's known lack of an ability to be punctual. Could you please clarify exactly what you see as trolling? As far as him removing the notification on his talk page, that is allowed and is to be considered nothing more than an acknowledgement it was received. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Writing Outdent due to more broken indenting by DePiep is, while nothing is broken (as I linked). Then, repeatedly reverting (as I linked). To be clear: that is childish, as the notification removal's es is. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As is running to mommy and tattling because one of your brother editors committed a (very) minor breach of etiquette. It's not like he defamed your mother or anything. One thing I have learned in 3 years here is that it takes skin thicker than silk. Everyone here is a volunteer. Would you appreciate someone wasting your time over absolutely nothing? John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree that is childish, I disagree it is trolling. Looking at the history, and this is where the childish comment was added in the text and this is where you violated WP:TPO and refactored his comment and called him a troll. I'd say you're both in the wrong here, and I'd argue that your apparent attempt to escalate the situation worked. I'd also say that it appears to me that you did it just to have a reason to come here and cry about it. I've worked with both you and Andy at various times and I agree he can be difficult to work with because of his personality and attitude, but I also think that working with you can be difficult at times too because we seem to have a language/communication barrier where you don't understand me and I don't understand you well. I'd suggest withdrawing this request or just drop it and hope it doesn't get noticed and fades away in an archive and both of you need to try a little harder to work with each other in a more productive manner instead of name calling. I hope that sounds reasonable and logical. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'm often not a fan of Andy's crash-through style, you shouldn't edit his comments and he's got every right to be upset. Ask him to fix the indenting on his talk page if it really bothers you, but I'd suggest that the best thing would be to just ignore it and concentrate on problems that matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

It's not a talkpage, so TPO does not even apply. It disrupts the discussion flow, so delete it. It is repetitive, so I'm here to prevent an editwar. For the rest: not here. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, DePiep, you need to grow up and stop baiting Andy, this is a situation waiting for a WP:BOOMERANG on you for your poor behavior. The disruption rests with you for opposing every single thing Andy has proposed at TfD, usually with the identical nonsense arguments. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

TPO aside (and I will note that it says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."), refactoring others comments when they've asked you not to is extremely provocative and unlikely to result in a positive resolution to any situation. Seriously, knock it off. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

I agree; DePiep, you'd best knock it off voluntarily and move on as it's not worth it, unless you actually want involuntary editing restrictions imposed on your account. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding my previous report

Hi, I reported this but am not satisfied with the outcome. Indeed the problem is that this editor apparently still edits WP, disrupts and makes *UNFOUNDED* personal attacks. Thanks for your feedback and action. 67.83.63.86 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As per this [212], a SPI was opened and settled. If there is a new issue you should raise it here, but WP doesn't have a multi-tiered appellate process like the Italian judicial system. BlueSalix (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hasteur disruptive behavior.

Despite being specifically directed to not close the WP:BON discussion of his misuse of the bot flag on his bot (in this revision by Xaosflux), Hasteur has insisted upon doing so anyways (in this revision). As such, I'm requesting that both him and his SOCK/Bot accounts be blocked to prevent any more WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that is stemming from his WP:FUCKYOUIMRIGHTIS WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Since he has banned me from his talk page, and has requested an interaction ban with me, I'm requesting that someone else please notify him of this discussion on his talk page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Guerillero has blocked T13 and removed his Rollback user right. I think it's fair to expect their comments/explanations in this thread shortly, especially since T13 already lodged an unblock request. At the very least, Rollback was not used at all ("undo" was), so that user right should be restored immediately. I will await Guerillero's comments here to avoid any wheel-warring issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  Edit warring is a behavior and not based on the number of edits. This isn't the first time that T13 has edit warred over this and `(Reverted edits by Hasteur (talk) to last version by C.Fred)` is the exact edit summary created by using rollback. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  After testing on my sandbox, it appears correct that this edit summary is generated by Rollback (and not undo), contrary to T13's claims. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  That same edit summary is also generated by Twinkle, though with "(TW)" appended (but not, as you say, by undo). Squinge (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm curious, which of the following diffs was created by use of rollback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? I'll note that I haven't had a rollback link on any page for a very long time. I disabled it about a month after getting in the usergroup with the code I had offered to other editors who requested the same thing in Phab:T48412 using greasemonky in my Firefox browser to prevent accidental clicks since the purpose of my requesting the group wasn't to use the rollback link (I could, and prefer to use the TW ones when I need that), but it was instead to have access to WP:Huggle and WP:Stiki. I've never had time to get past installation of those, but I hope to someday have the time needed for that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I am going out for a bit, but,right now, I do not see any reason to unblock --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left the thread open for an extra week to see if some other editor besides ones who have a vendetta for causing me trouble. Nobody responded in over a week so I closed citing IAR due to the fact that rule of "closing a thread you are involved in" is a rule that would prohibit me from improving wikipedia by closing the vindictave complaintant. Hasteur (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how closing the thread improved the encyclopedia. Better to let someone else close it or even to let it just fade into the archives. Back in the old days most discussions were not closed.T13 it hardly is something to block over . Chillum 03:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Xaosflux

• Well what a mess we've got here, my thoughts on this:
  1. Anyone except for Hasteur or Technical 13 should review Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Possible_Bot_Issue and determine if it warrants further action or close it.
  2. The summary above supports that Technical 13's reversion was misguided and that he should have used another method of reversion and supplied an edit summary to explain his reasoning.
  3. After reviewing T13's last several thousand edits, this appears to be an isolated issue of the rollback tool, whereas multiple instances of productive vandalism reversion are present. I support T13 having the rollback right restored.
  4. Blocks being preventative (including the aspect of an enforced cool-down period), suggest reducing T13's block period from 48h to a maximum of 24h - I don't think additional time is needed.
  5. Asking that @Guerillero: review #3,#4 above.

• — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, T13's laser focus and multiple reversions of closure is indicative that he cannot put down the stick and walk away from the corpse of the horse. I indicated that because having such a thread open longer with still no updates does not help Wikipedia. The issue was identified, contrition was made, promises extracted to not do it again, yet T13 still wants even more punishment. I do not think lowering T13's block length or restoration of rollback is warranted as this is not the first time that they have taken hasty improper action. Hasteur 03:13, 25 January 2015‎

Hasteur, given your[213] multiple[214] reverts[215] it might be wise to keep quiet. Your own conduct is equally unacceptable. —Sladen (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) And please don't falsify[216] the timestamps on your edits either…

What part of WP:TALKO are you cititing as your NEED to undo my failure to get it 100% perfect on the first try? Please keep your hands OFF my edits. Is it a reasonable assertion to let my timestamp accidentally reflect a little later? Hasteur (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Much as I fear that the conversation may get side-tracked, the relevant policy is WP:TALKO Attributing unsigned comments ("append attribution … if they have failed to sign it"),[217] and Signature cleanup ("…an attempt to fake a signature … edit the signature to the standard form … or some even simpler variant").[218] I appreciate your further attempts to[219] try[220] to[221] fix[222] the signature are most welcome, and it would be really appreciated if you'd be willing to apply the remainder of WP:SIGCLEAN and self-correct the timestamp in order to avoid any more accidental edit-wars. —Sladen (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Further: 1 change, 1 revert, and one reasonable "Concensus could change action". Definitely not multiple reverts. Hasteur (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have declined Technical 13's unblock request, my full reasoning can be found on their talk page. I would be more willing to consider a change in duration if T13 showed any indication they understood and accepted the reason for the block. Chillum 03:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see that @Shii: declined a T13 unblock request with the reason "The point of a short-term block is to give you time to cool off. You clearly are not nearly cool enough yet, so take this as an opportunity to stand back and reevaluate your life priorities. Shii (tock) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)". How does this tally with WP:COOLDOWN, which appears to directly contradict Shii's assertion? Squinge (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was completely unaware of this guideline, which must have been added some years after I became an admin. In that context, since he has agreed not to continue anything like disruptive editing, an unblock is deserved. Apologies Shii (tock) 10:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • An honourable response. Squinge (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• My current concerns with the bot have been dealt with by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. I'm very disappointed in Hasteur's inability to deal with this in a WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL manner, but am thankful that this situation is over. I'd like to have an administrator remind Hasteur that his repeated personal attacks, battleground mentality, incivility, threats, and generally disruptive behaviour is inappropriate and request of him to work on those things and when issues arise to simply focus on resolving the issue. I expect this request will be laughed and and ignored, but I'm getting tired of these battles and it is becoming more and more clear to me that the community is either incapable of dealing with or unwilling to deal with the severe, repetitive issues that have been raised about this user. Thank you for your time, and I apologize to those that feel like theirs has been wasted. I realize also that I'm not perfect and have things I need to work on as well, and look forward to growing in those areas if the community will allow it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good unblock

Technical 13 is right back at it [223]. Based on a WP:NOTTHEM "Not my fault attitude" - see [224] for a discussion of how a) his canvassing an ANI thread was because the instructions at the top of this page are inadequate and b) how his marking edits as minor is Twinkle's fault, it's my expectation that unless they rapidly get clueful we're looking at someone between six to eighteen months before they will be no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia. (I understand this is a "pile-on" comment, but with WP:RFCU dead where am I supposed to point it out otherwise? NE Ent 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In addition to this, I would like to request a involuntary interaction ban be imposed as only last week my bringing the idea was laughed off the board and boomerangs were threatened. Since then we've had T13 edit war with administrators to keep a scarlet letter present, We've had T13 have their rollback revoked (and restored), We've had T13 blocked for 48 hours (and released early) because they claimed it was not edit warring. I have attempted to disengage from T13, they have decided to continue and enlarge their accusations of high treason in wikipedia when a generous application of WP:IAR would have prevented a significant amount of this disruptive editing. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And we can see that, the very WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Request for Interaction ban with Technical13 was flatly turned down, with not a single voice of support for it. I am grateful to see that as a result of this charade we finally have a filed and authorised WP:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 9. This is a good thing and neatly confirms that HasteurBot and the behaviour of its owner is not faultless. …We can also observe that it was not even T13 who filed the original bug report[225] that started this mess. And we can observe that the report was responded in pretty-much the same problematic argumentative manner[226] and allegations of hounding.

All you in all you can avoid the "interaction" by playing by the rules, and dealing with bug reports (in a constructive manner). If that is done, consistently, and there still turn out to be the problems then we can deal with them—but I doubt there will be. Finally, I hope you will take the time to fully digest Slakr's long and thoughtful reply from last night[227] which warns of the future, based on the past. —Sladen (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban between Technical 13 and Hasteur. I have seen a bit of this and Technical 13 needs to be stopped now. Let's say that Hasteur has broken every rule in the book and is the worst bot operator on the planet—that still would not justify the relentless and pointless harassment from T13. Operating a bot is hard work and operators should be protected from silly sniping. Sure, raise an issue—raise it twice if wanted. But after that, let the bot people deal with it. I would support whatever it takes to get T13 off Hasteur's back—block, one-way interaction ban, topic ban, site ban—any of these would help the project. I write this in full knowledge of T13's above comment at 00:38, 26 January 2015 where yet more misguided crap is poured on Hasteur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I requesting an interaction ban with Hasteur months ago, and was ignored. I'm also tired of attack after attack after attack from Hasteur. If Hasteur was willing to WP:DROP his insistence that I'm out to get him, and just deal with the legitimate concerns that arise there would be no conflicts. I haven't initiated any direct contact with Hasteur in a very long time, and will continue to not do so. I'm very careful to not mention him in my reports of issues. I raised an issue once, as a bot person myself, and there was no reason for Hasteur to keep reverting the BAG people who told him explicitly not to close the topic as he was involved. I was then blocked and had a userright that I've never used for undoing the improperly closed discussion and reporting the situation here for the larger community to deal with. I completely understand the situation and I have more important scripting work to do before WMF1.26-7 is released and 0 JavaScripts on this wiki become nonfunctional. Hasteur, as a final plea with you, please stop your personal attacks and threats. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical 13 Your behaviour hasn't been enamouring either. Yes, focusing on Javascript (or anything else) sounds a great idea. If there's a bug report, please do so, but please keep it minimal (with diffs) and avoid piling on afterwards—if necessary this can be done by other editors. —Sladen (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Wait; long multipage arguments are great fun and all, but if @Hasteur: wants an interaction ban, and @Technical 13: wants an interaction ban.... I hereby wave my magic wand, and *poof* there's an interaction ban. EFFECTIVE NOW. Enforceable by blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

pinging @Technical 13: again because I messed up the ping the first time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I feel rather obliged to comment here as the thread in question was started by me. First T13 shouldn't be punished for following Wikipedia policies and attempting to get action on a user who has admitted himself to have violated policies. Second, Hasteur is in the wrong, he violated many rules and seems to have no care or remorse for his actions, other than quickly filing a bot request to back him up. While I admit his bot is quite useful, the way he used it against me in a debate about G13 (debate here) was unacceptable. He should get off his might horse admit he is in the wrong at the base of this issue. _{Just my two cents.} EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Silent treatment muddle

I just completed a new article in a sandbox - User:Penbat/silent treatment. I tried to do a move to Silent treatment but It wouldnt let me as it already existed as a redirect. I unwisely just copied and pasted the content of User:Penbat/silent treatment to Silent treatment but there is legacy junk left in Talk:Silent_treatment. Please can someone tidy this up, maybe best idea is to delete Silent treatment so I can do a clean move from User:Penbat/silent treatment.--Penbat (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No reason to delete the article or its Talk page. The two short posts on Talk:Silent_treatment are on the same subject that your text is on. If you want to archive them, they are over 7 years old, so that would certainly be an obvious and acceptable move. Just create an archive on the page and manually remove and insert them there. Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I removed the inaccurate transwiki template from that Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks it freaked me out that the transwiki template said "Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there." Are you sure its OK ?--Penbat (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the bot looks for pages that (1) are in CAT:Copy to WT and (2) don't have a transwiki tag at the talk page. If you revert it to this point and don't put the tag back on the page, the bot will probably move it, but aside from that, you should be safe unless a vandal adds the category to the current article. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blocked promotional account has now made a legal threat at User talk:BlueLionEnt, so perhaps the ability to edit the talk page should be removed? Squinge (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The attempt at outing, though laughable, also needs to be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that - it's ludicrously wrong. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's still not permitted, and should be rev-del'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Squinge (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Block adjusted now, thanks folks. Squinge (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism only account

Is there a place to report vandalism-only accounts? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wahoo123) Rune-Midgarts 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Here - WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need admin to intervene here. I am being victimised by this editor. When I call him out and rv his blatant trolling I receive a deludge of threats on my talk page.

This is total bias and request an impartial and unbiased second opinion. I cite AGF, I am a new user and the behaviour directed towards me by mandruss and his cronies is unwarranted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.100.51 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My ethics prevent me from taking all the credit here. This user has also been victimized by Ian.thomson [228], Dbfirs [229], AndyTheGrump [230], Tevildo [231], and others. A quick look at the OP's contribs and talk page should tell the rest of the story. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have previously:

• posted white supremacist bullshit, more than once,
• asked the ref desk about "Anal to oral irrigation"
• started multiple threads asking why your threads were deleted
• asked why your pants keep tearing
• deleted an upstanding editor's comments.

Either you are a troll, or you're incapable of understanding that your presence is a waste of everyone's time.

Admins, please block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OP has started this thread at Reference Desk: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#when trolling is trolling and when it isnt. Obvious bias here.. Not only misguided, but misplaced. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

70.190.111.213: repeatedly reverting biased, inaccurate edits on current events portal; refusing constructive dialogue

Good day all,

First, I apologize in advance for any breaches of protocol I may myself have unknowingly committed, as I am a new user.

User 70.190.111.213 has, at least ten times, insisted on biased and to varying degrees inaccurate renderings of headlines on the Jan. 21 mass-stabbing in Tel Aviv. He has reverted edits by myself (Slvofjstce, previously 70.114.220.115, 72.182.49.254, and 128.62.31.0), FourViolas, 2605:e000:aa0c:f200:443a:c372:b7d9:a32e, 174.88.203.17, and Snowball359:

[232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241]

His current version reads:

• A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crosses into Israel for the express purpose to stab (sic) people attacking over a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street. (The New York Times)

As I've pointed out in my edits, and on his talk page, his headline is overly long, openly biased, and contains two pieces of information either not present in, or contradicted by, the article he provides. My suggested version reads:

• A Palestinian man from the West Bank stabs up to a dozen Israelis in Tel Aviv before being apprehended. (The New York Times)

Once I had familiarized myself with Wikipedia's editing protocols, I decided to reach out to 70.190.111.213 to hopefully end the annoying cycle of reversion (see: User talk:70.190.111.213, January 2015 [the first]). I apologized for the preceding back-and-forth, and explained my concerns with his edits, as well as the rationale behind the changes I had suggested. I requested we engage in productive dialogue before any further edits be made; to that end, I agreed not to change his headline for over eight hours, in that hope that we could open dialogue before then. I received no response during those eight hours, then went ahead and made the edit I had previously suggested. Three minutes later, he reverted the edit. He has since done so two more times, once for FourViolas and once for me. He has not responded to my request for dialogue, but has referred to me as a "sockpuppect (sic) created just 4 days ago for block evasion."

Especially given that 70.190.111.213 does seem to be a fairly prolific and generally productive contributer to the current events portal, I'm not quite sure what action I would suggest be taken. But I do feel that he is acting unfairly and unreasonably, and I hope we can finally bring this matter to a just conclusion.

I apologize again for any inadvertent breaches of protocol, and thank you for your attention. Slvofjstce (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

elegent speech too bad this guy is a sockpuppet for a banned account and he just keeps changing his ip and registering new accounts to do whatever he pleases. This current account is just 3 days old (Slvofjstce) yet he already knows to come to this area to try and contrive a scam to an admin.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

he attempts to contrive an arguement that he has consensus by naming various account all of which are just today's new sockpuppet anon ip or account such as (70.114.220.115) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

another such as (72.182.49.254) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (128.62.31.0) a single edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (2605:E000:AA0C:F200:443A:C372:B7D9:A32E) a three edits were made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

such as (174.88.203.17) a double edit was made under this ip to the what do you know the item above and absolutely nothing else.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the "wording" of the above edit to the daily events section - the exact item can be viewed at the citation given and although paraphrased (which is exactly what we are required to do) is what the any and all citations on the internet say that i could find according to google - that "A Palestinian man from the West Bank, Hamza Muhammad Hassan Matrouk, illegally crossed into Israel for the express purpose to stabbing people attacking up to a dozen Israelis on a bus in central Tel Aviv. Security forces capture the assailant as he continued to indiscriminately stab people in the street" and that HE ADMITTED TO EXACTLY THAT UPON QUESTIONING BY AUTHORITIES--70.190.111.213 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll depose that I'm not a sockpuppet, and that I reverted 70.190.111.213 for what appeared to me to be WP:NPOV problems. Wikipedia should strive to be dispassionate, even in extreme cases.

I propose a temporary WP:Block of the IP for edit warring and refusal to engage in dialogue, and an admonishment to all involved editors to be aware of WP's Arab-Israeli sanctions, particularly the 1RR. I think User:Slvofjstce does not need to be blocked, because they have shown themself willing to make repeated good-faith efforts to resolve the content dispute. FourViolas (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

almost certain that this is just another sock of the above person - how do i know this? - this person also says they just started at wiki (the acct was created just 3 months ago) and yet they are now giving advice to admins??? Further they dont address the issue of the rotating anon ip adove as if they are a magician - "watch this hand please" - no the endelsssly rotation of anon ips is irrelevant - yeah right?!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

further i see no possible way they could have known that this discussion existed and yet they are now following it--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

further i have just looked through all 1000 of this supposed new persons edits since the three months ago creation and yet HERE IS THE BEST ONE YET they have EXACTLY ZERO edits to the daily events page (except the one edit they made there in support of the sock above) and yet suddenly they are an expert about what belongs there to such a degree that they, again i say, are ready to give advice to admins about blocks!--70.190.111.213 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe you have credible evidence of WP:SOCKpuppetry, please open a discussion at WP:SPI. (Note that Slvtojstce already claimed most of the IPs you mention above.) On this page, please WP:KEEPCOOL and respond to Slvtojstce's specifically enumerated concerns about your edit warring and refusal to discuss the problem. Your contribs demonstrate good faith, but edit warring is simply not a good way to generate consensus. FourViolas (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, all. By Wikipedian protocol, would I be unreasonable to make my (repeatedly) proposed edits now? I don't want to unduly pour gasoline onto a fire, but I also strongly believe the current headline to be unacceptable to Wikipedia's standards. I hope we can move forward (whatever form that takes) by 13:00 GMT. Peace. Slvofjstce (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your discomfort with the present version, but I think it would be better to wait either until 70.190.111.213 agrees to discuss or until they are blocked for refusing to do so. WP:There is no deadline, especially because very few people look at "current events" more than a few days old. This noticeboard is for the resolution of WP:User conduct problems, not content disputes, and in this case it doesn't look like we can reach content consensus until we resolve 70.190.111.213's reverting-without-discussion behavior. FourViolas (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin action: 70.190.111.213 has been active recently, but has chosen not to add anything to this discussion since their spurious WP:Socking allegations (a characteristic attempt to deflect criticism: [242] [243] [244]). This has gone on long enough, and if 70.190.111.213 doesn't want to offer apologies or assurances that they will stop edit warring, or attacking other editors, they should be prevented from doing so. FourViolas (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I've never been involved in an AN/I discussion, and looking around I realize incidents usually take a while to resolve. Sorry to sound pushy. FourViolas (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin action: In the 90+ hours that have passed since FourViolas and I last requested 70.190.111.213 engage us in good faith regarding his edits, he's found time for dozens if not hundreds of edits, but has neither opted for a more neutral/accurate reading, nor given us a word in response. I have no reason to believe that, if I make my proposed and moderate changes, he won't continue to edit war and make baseless, offensive claims of sockpuppetry. I'm new here, someone please help this move forward productively. Slvofjstce (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of paid contributions

I have been involved in a discussion on Talk:Kurds, involving the use of the word "Iranian" to describe the group. I have attempted to make the case that the long-standing consensus appears to be somewhat biased, but that a complete reversal of the consensus doesn't seem to be representative of the reliable sources. This lead to a disagreement with Bawer1. This user engaged in personal attacks against another editor, DeCausa, in the discussion, and was temporarily blocked[245] for the attack[246] [247] (plus edit warring and threats of meat puppetry). Soon after their block expired, they made this accusation[248] that I am biased, and must be paid for my contributions. I rebuked[249] those accusations, as I am a long-time contributor, who gladly volunteers my work on the project, just as all of us do. I have tried to be objective in this discussion, taking all comments into account, but I take accusations of bad faith seriously. I thought I would request a WP:3O, but it was recommended that the issue be brought to a noticeboard, since the disagreement on both of our parts is about user conduct. I don't know what the proper course of action is here, but I would appreciate some input as to how to redirect the discussion back to the topic, instead of ad hominem arguments. Thank you in advance. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Recommend at least a One-month Block - User:Bawer1 is just coming off a two-week block for personal attacks at this same talk page, and has now made the allegation of paid editing, which is a very serious aspersion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: You decided to comment on my talk page[250] instead of here, but I am posting your comment here to be included in this discussion. This[251] was my response. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue. I still recommend a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Bawer1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a relatively new user with a strong POV. He's now had policy explained to him in some detail both at Talk:Kurds#Kurds and on his user talk page, as well as just coming off a two week block for edit-warring over several months, personal attacks and threating meat puppetry. There's no sign of his changing his ways - so I don't think it's newbie "overenthusiasm". WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Josh3580: ::@DeCausa:Unbelievable. You two acts as if I am edit warring or something. What is this nonsense about "personal attack" as if I cursed at you, bullied you, or physically hit you. You know it's amazing to find out that once you expose someone they try to get rid of you. I have exposed all of DeCausa and Josh3580's accusations against me. DeCausa and Josh3580 had nothing left to say to me, so they have decided to get me into a one month block. For all of those looking at this comment, all you have to go is look at the Kurdish talk page, and look at the last comment that I made. You will then realize who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. Josh3580 has lied to me countless times. First he told me that he does not base his decsions on facts, but rather on a consensus. I then manage to share my point of view of removing the term "Iranian" on the Kurdish talk page, which I got MORE people to agree with. Yet there are still no changes. Then I ask Josh why there is no changes and he says that the "consenus is biased. Now what do you want me to believe that Josh is not biased after that statement? It is my right to believe this!! I have been arguing with these two knuckle heads for a month, and they have not been able to create any solution, but only attack every remark I make, and try to get rid of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bawer1: I never, ever recommended a block, I have only asked that an Administrator investigate your accusations of policy violations by me. If anything, I am giving your accusations weight by asking an Administrator to weigh in. If you are correct that I am a paid editor, and you have evidence to support it, then I will be the one to suffer a block. I absolutely did say that I feel that the current consensus is biased - which, please note, is in agreement with your position. However, consensus building is how things are decided here, and regardless of my partial agreement with you, a new consensus based on reliable sources has not yet been determined. Disagreement is a beautiful thing on this project; it's how things are decided, but you have repeatedly accused me of bias, and now of being paid to contribute, instead of waiting for a possible new consensus to develop. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've drifted over from another conversation on this page. I just wanted to point out that aside from totally ignoring the policy on personal attacks, in your post here you touched a hot button by effectively accusing someone of paid editing. That is a very serious accusation, and it's not the kind of thing we throw around, as undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Lastly, I doubt that anyone here has an opinion on the underlying issue, this is merely a commentary on the tactics you are employing. Coretheapple (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And now I am "insane", according to @Bawer1: [252], and they are convinced of malintent by me. When I accused them of ignoring my answers here[253], I was speaking of my explanation of our policies. This user still doesn't seem to understand how to limit discussions to the topic, preferring to call me a knucklehead[254]. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was auto-archived, but a resolution has not been reached. I have moved it back to the main page, please let me know if this was the wrong action to take. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

14.139.244.243 + Spallahabad

14.139.244.243 and Spallahabad have very similar editing patterns; but if they are indeed the same person, I have no complaint about this. What worries me is their/his/her, um, underperformance re WP:CIR and most recently their insistence on adding screenshots of web pages where these are IMHO not at all helpful (copyright considerations aside). However, their various edits in the last two or three days have already led to my making two re-deletions and saltings, an MfD, etc etc; and it may seem as if I have some personal obsession here. (I'd deny this, and point to all the other edits I've been making during the same period.) And I may have been gruff -- though really, this hardly seems a new editor (resemblances to UIDs active over five years ago are striking). Anyway, could some fresh and uninvolved admin please look at the recent edits and keep an eye on this person (these persons). I need hardly add that if I have overgruffed you are free to censure or block me. (The latter would be a new experience for me.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bullying by user Codename Lisa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this allowed? Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) is unnecessarily bullying me and further threatening me to block me from editing. In short I added a new section on his/her talk page, instead of a prompt reply she insulted me by calling my edits sloppy and careless. Instead of adding fuel to the fire I just chose to remove the section added by me. But this is when she started bullying and threatening to block me from edits. I am so frustrated by this users behaviour and tempted to use the f-word/b-word against this user but do not want to be the bad guy by using those words. Check the notice that was posted on my Talk Page Mckmckmt (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) It helps a lot to understand the process. Suggest you read and understand WP:BRD. Beginning with the part in the box near the top: If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. The other editor's initial revert was a routine way of challenging your edit, making it a disputed edit. A disputed edit may not be done again until consensus is reached for it on the article talk page (or, at least, until the challenging editor changes their mind). As I read it, you violated the WP:BRD process with this revert. The other editor should have linked to WP:BRD in the edit summary of their subsequent revert, but the first error was yours. The preceding is just my non-admin opinion and an effort to assist in the situation and others are welcome to ask me to butt out. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Although you started a section on her talkpage it is up to her what she does on it as the talk page is hers. When your removal of the section was reverted you should not have edit warred over the removal and just left it then moved on. As for the warnings, any editor may leave warnings to another editor; administrators are not the only ones permitted to leave warnings. As for the comments left by Fleetcommand per your edits, you used 5 or more edits to sort your post out which is pretty sloppy. You might consider using the preview button more to see what your post looks like before saving the edit. Basically, what you can take from this is don't edit war on another editor's talk page. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) In all fairness, the first one to characterise your edits as "careless and sloppy" was FleetCommand ([255]). It's understandable that you might take offence with that (although, as mentioned above, the comment is not entirely unjustified), but repeatedly violating Wikipedia's policies (WP:3RR and WP:TALK) is not an appropriate reaction.

On a separate note, as written at the top of this noticeboard, if you start a discussion about another user, you must inform them about it. From what I can see, you have so far not informed Codename Lisa. Please correct this oversight forthwith. I've posted a notice on her talk page, but please take care to do this yourself next time. Indrek (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to give long speech after I read this thread at ANI. When I first joined Wikipedia, I had the sloppiest editing style ever. Badgrammar typos here ans there (yes, ther I go agin), going wild WITH CAPS aND What NOt. I argued in an article talk namespace that SVGs should be resized at first rather than in the articles - took me a while to realize my mistake. The community here didn't exactly reward me for it but then bit-by-bit I started to understand. I met some pretty nice sarcastic people and others who just left templates but I didn't get threatened. What Codename Lisa did wasn't a threat but come on, he's a new editor, for God's sake. He is a new editor. New editor. Read it, properly? NEW EDITOR. Do we expect them to know wikicode right when they decide to appear in this stagnant ruthless community? Do we expect quality content? He violated 3RR, fine. But then, he didn't know about talk page rules. What he did was an innocent act of trying to resolve the matter, rather improperly. We always tend to side with admins, in fact, we always do. Just for once, can we care about editor retention? I really dislike the people around these days (in general, no offence to anyone) and I've almost left Wikipedia. I just drop in by-and-now, doing minor edits and arguing for the new people of our community. Everytime, a new editor gets blocked, it's rather sad. This community's dying. We put up templates, fine, but atleast explain the damn situation. Do not expect them to reply constructively. That is human nature. That's my long speech. Oh wait, I just committed hypocrisy. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 09:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My aim is simple. Get the Insulting section completely removed or at a minimum remove the insulting statements. Mckmckmt (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone point me in the right direction to get the insulting section/statements removed please.Mckmckmt (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems the applicable policy is WP:CIVIL. Specifically, you want the section about dealing with incivility (although you should of course read the entire policy). It seems you've more or less jumped directly to step 8 (file a report at ANI). Might I suggest you try steps 5 (asking the editor in question to strike out the offending comment) or 7 (simply walking away)? Indrek (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I want removal, not strikkeout. Mckmckmt (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll be honest, I have no idea what, exactly, is going on here. Really bad spamming, maybe? Or well-meaning Wikilove messages that just look horribly suspicious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=644353331&oldid=644221004

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeated "Payload/ParisHiltonIPhone.app" = spam. One of the edit summaries is special. "Paris Hilton Iphone 3 Application Vers 1.2 Software Pictures are Missing running Apple IPhone 6 I cant have a picture taken with the girl I love the most." APK whisper in my ear 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the mess from Adam's page because I came to the conclusion as well. It was page breaking on my end and extremely odd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kobani situation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All day IPs (mostly) have been editing Siege of Kobani to declare a Kurd/Coalition/FSA victory. It's driven by media reports and headlines. Reality is Kobani is both a city and a small region with 350 villages. Today the Kurds MAY have taken the balance of the town and one village but tomorrow ISIL could just as easily take part of the town again. There has been no surrender/peace/serious pull back etc. It is premature for Wikipedia to declare a victory when the sides continue to fight and 349 villages in Kobani are ISIL controlled. I suggested Pending Changes protection, but no one has acted on this yet. Admin attention requested to ensure WP does not get ahead of current events. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that there's a pending request at WP:RFPP. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bareyman61 and Comparison of European road signs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has repeatedly edited this article in a manner I believe does not improve the page, including altering captions to change their meaning, and adding more images at a point in time where the article is already quite bloated and difficult to load for users that have access to slower internet. I have requested several times that they discuss on the talk page before adding more images and they have refused. This user has also made what I believe can be considered a threat, and certainly a violation of civility rules. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days for now. --Leyo 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The user is now violating their block via IP. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the deletion as well of Comparison of African Traffic Signs, Road signs in Djibouti, and Road signs in Liberia as they have no sources and use road sign files from other countries. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil behavior of FleetCommand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FleetCommand Reverted insulting statements made in the section here. Mckmckmt (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

diff=644388380&oldid=644387158, "(Reverted 3 edits by Mckmckmt (talk): Rv. vand. What a dick!)"

I'm sorry -- you don't deserve to be called a dick, of course -- but we're not going to do anything about that. It's in a edit summary and those only get edited for the most egregious insults. For better or worse, Wikipedia is a very "adult" place and there's no real consensus on what exactly civil means. If I could fix that, I would, but I can't. I've asked FleetCommand not to call you that anymore [256]. NE Ent 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked the diffs too (diff=644388380&oldid=644387158)? And is this Wikipedia's way of discouraging new users by not doing anything about offenders like FleetCommand. I checked your comment on the FleetCommand's Talk page. which he removed instantly. Mckmckmt (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to remove comments from one's own talk page per WP:OWNTALK (we have letters / shortcuts from almost everything around here). Yes, we're often not good about recruitment. I suggest checking out WP:TEAHOUSE where they are volunteers focused on helping new editors. NE Ent 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mckmckmt: Looking at this, I would encourage you to to stay away from ANI in the anticipation that you will find more pleasure in creating or improving articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timbouctou vandalism and POV

This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with [citation needed], alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

Issues with article

• Vandalism

My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

Referenced test:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".

was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with [citation needed]

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

Earlier text with correct quote

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

was altered by inserting while

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

• Logical fallacy

In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Wikipedia Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Wikipedia's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

• POV

Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition.[31] According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]

Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

For details see here.

References

Issues with request for comment

• Harassment and vandalism

I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

"User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

Soliciting admin support

Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Wikipedia administrator Joy [shallot] contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it, and there really was a problem with Timbouctou reinserting a text which has a tone not at all supported by the source. I made the changes so the text reflects what the source really says (diff). Timbouctou should really not missuse sources the way he did, neither add POV content such as calling a historian "nationalist historian" just by his personal opinion (diff when he first time added the text). FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais Thank you for the correction you've made. How about removing the valid reference and requesting where I provided the online verification of the referenced text, then how about claiming baselessly a copyright violation? How about removing my comments from the talkpage?--Milos zankov (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, this is not an appropriate venue to discuss article content. Secondly, you clearly have WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding the way discussions are led and the overall cooperative work needed to build this project. Thirdly, the text you want to see in the said article (about a pretty controversial political book) was lifted verbatim from http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website which serves to promote the said book, and which has copyright on its entire contents. Fourth, you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book, and fifth - this is the second time you copy pasted the entire thread to ANI after your previous attempt ended in it being archived. Sixth, there were at least five (5) other editors who left negative comments on article talk and your own talk page about your edits and who questioned your good faith in launching an RfC. Seventh, I have no desire to waste my time on debating actions of a single-purpose account which is here solely and exclusively because he/she has a political axe to grind. You should have been indef blocked by now, but it's not my call to make so I guess you'll have a lot more copy-pasting at ANI to do. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book!! No need to comment it, see just the latest fix of the article. Now about non-existent copyright issue:

(cur | prev) 14:04, 17 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,402)‎ . . (rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015")

(cur | prev) 13:42, 17 January 2015‎ Milos zankov (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,514 bytes) (-2,377)‎ . . (Undid revision 642753012 by Timbouctou Wikipedia article is copyrighted too and 6 year older than "www.magnumcrimen.org")

(cur | prev) 11:28, 16 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,377)‎ . . (rv text copyrighted to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" and published on http://magnumcrimen.org/)--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Timbouctou, but regarding your edit, you did gave a bit of your own tone to the edit which clearly defends one POV over the other and which is not backed by the source. Regarding the rest, unfortunately I am a bit limited with the time and this matter is complex, but I am afraid that Milos zankovs inexperience here becomes used to push one POV in the article. I hope that doesn't happened. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• In case somebody is still having problems getting the picture, Milos zankov's purpose here is to censor other people's edits at Magnum Crimen to keep the article content verbatim identical to the one published, non-attributed and copyrighted, at http://magnumcrimen.org/. This a case of WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:COPYOTHERS, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMIRROR all rolled into one, plus quite possibly WP:CONFLICT. Timbouctou (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Thefascistnazi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now, even the biggest newbie lover would stuggle to welcome this guy - Thefascistnazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Maybe their fingers slipped on their one and only edit to date, and I'm sure their username breaks some policy somewhere. And on today of all days, too... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing in Charmed article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

63.146.79.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 63.146.79.153 keeps making disruptive edits to the "starring" parameter in the infobox of the Charmed article. The user keeps listing Alyssa Milano's name first but it was agreed at Talk:Charmed#Starring sections that the lead actresses should be listed in the order of the most episodes they appeared in – Holly Marie Combs (179 episodes), Alyssa Milano (178 episodes), Rose McGowan (112 episodes), Shannen Doherty (67 episodes). A few users have helped revert the IP's unexplained edits ([257], [258], [259], [260], [261]) but the IP user won't stop. I have also explained to the IP user in edit summaries ([262], [263], [264], [265]) and on its talk page but the IP still won't listen. Lesahna01 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote them a small message pointing out the edit warring policy and directed them to the talk page. If the behaviour continues then a report to WP:AN3 for long-term edit warring may be warranted. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lesahna01 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing

A person who presents himself/herself as a newby by the name of Barniecadd is engaging in edits that are reminiscent of Mrm7171, Truthbringer1, and docsim. I had edited the Elton Mayo entry after arriving at a consensus with Bromley86, discussing edits on the talk page. Barniecadd has suddenly appeared out of the blue, and makes wholesale edits without discussing the edits on the talk page. I have asked him (I will go with one pronoun) to discuss the edits before he makes them because they are major edits. He doesn't. I think he either is User:Mrm7171, User:Truthbringer1, and user:docsim (a person who under each of several different names was asked to leave Wikipedia)or is working for that person. Iss246 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)